A Rant, in which I express displeasure at the lack of proper English usage.

[Mad Maxine]

I would most definitely agree. However, I have not encountered any severe illiteracy on these boards, so I'm fairly happy for the time being.

You must have missed it.

[Dax]

Not when it is counterproductive, no.

The English language is not just a communications protocol to me. It is an artform. Anybody attempting to tip pigshit over it and call it postmodernism is getting a good slapping.

Hmmm, I don't think anyone here has done that. 

However it does seem to me that, as societies change and develop, and as communications itself changes, it would make sense that a language must also adapt.  In an earlier post, I took the position that a rule of a language should contribute to clarifying a message.  If a rule is simply an artifact with no actual benefit to conveying information, it should be discarded.  I haven't seen anything in this discussion that would lead me to change that position.

[Offlogic]

A friend once remarked that what he most liked about being a Mensa member (is that an oxymoron?) was that in an argument noone could say "Oh, what do you know about it?!".
King English, Queens english... doubtless to say, this forum is at least 50% above average... so "Praise 'Bob'"!


_______________________________________________________________________
This message has been brought to you by the
"Elwood Avenue Home for Wayword Girls & 24 Hour Casino Resort"

[LibelAndSlander]

I hate that people think that they don't have to spell on the internet, and when I say something about it they say "god its just a form why do u care." I care because I have enough problems with my dear language as it is, WHY MAKE IT WORSE BY MISUSING IT?

I don't even use shorthand when text messaging. "u" and "r" aren't words.

Though I DO use terms like "wtf" and "omg" and such things. For "WTF" it's partially to avoid overuse of profanity. And "OMG..." I don't know, I guess I started using it to make fun of people who use those terms, and then... it sort of stuck.

But I do still like to spell my words properly. I have the auto-spellchecker on both of my computers that underlines words that are spelled wrong - definitely convenient.

[Warwolt the engineer]

Yet, WTF and OMG are internet terms just as theres terms outside the internet and generaly accepted. But you shouldn't overdo them tough.

[Josh of Vernian Process]

idontknowhatuallrtalkingabootidontnoticeanyspellingorgrammarerrorsonthisfrumeveryoneistotallyclearinalloftheyreposts
ilovepunctuationandimgladthateveryoneelseherelovespunctuationasmuchasido.

But seriously, what irks me the most is when people post about others spelling or grammar mistakes, but make glaringly obvious mistakes in there own rebuttals.

That just makes you lose all credibility in my eyes.

And what exactly is wrong with using the word through in the context of a phrase such as "We are open Monday through Friday"??

Would you rather we say it like: "We are open from Monday to Friday"? Because either way it's getting the exact same message across.

And for gods sake people it's spelled GRAMMAR not grammer.

[LibelAndSlander]

And for gods sake people it's spelled GRAMMAR not grammer.

ARGH yes another big problem I have with the internet population.
It drives me sort of crazy to see someone correcting someone else's english skills but spelling grammar wrong.
I'm just curious as to where spelling it wrong got started? Because so many people with rather excellent english skills in general seem to think that it is actually correct.

[Outa_Spaceman]

But I do still like to spell my words properly. I have the auto-spellchecker on both of my computers that underlines words that are spelled wrong - definitely convenient.

Hands up those that are able to spot the issues within the quoted sentence... 

[LibelAndSlander]

Forgive me, I have not slept very well for the past 3 days, so my grammar is probably awful. I do feel bad for letting that leak into a thread about bad english.

[Outa_Spaceman]

Forgive me, I have not slept very well for the past 3 days, so my grammar is probably awful. I do feel bad for letting that leak into a thread about bad english.

You need no forgiveness...   I understood what you wrote which is the important thing...

[LibelAndSlander]

Forgive me, I have not slept very well for the past 3 days, so my grammar is probably awful. I do feel bad for letting that leak into a thread about bad english.

You need no forgiveness...   I understood what you wrote which is the important thing...

Haha. Yeah, I always try to make myself understandable, if nothing else. Sometimes my punctuation and grammar slip as my sleep deprivation worsens... but my spelling will always be good!

[Lady Almira]

I would most definitely agree. However, I have not encountered any severe illiteracy on these boards, so I'm fairly happy for the time being.

You must have missed it.

Where? Well, anyways, it's far less prominent here than on other forums.

[Sir Ratchetspanner]

Not when it is counterproductive, no.

The English language is not just a communications protocol to me. It is an artform. Anybody attempting to tip pigshit over it and call it postmodernism is getting a good slapping.

Hmmm, I don't think anyone here has done that. 

However it does seem to me that, as societies change and develop, and as communications itself changes, it would make sense that a language must also adapt.  In an earlier post, I took the position that a rule of a language should contribute to clarifying a message.  If a rule is simply an artifact with no actual benefit to conveying information, it should be discarded.  I haven't seen anything in this discussion that would lead me to change that position.

Granted, I agree that a rule of language should help clarify communication.. But have you considered what an unnecessary rule change does to communication? The most important thing about a standard of any kind, is that it is agreed on. Without that, a standard is useless.

What purpose is there in having more than one method of spelling the same words? Especially when those who advocate new, uglier spellings know full well they will not be universally accepted.

So changing spellings for their own sake simply creates more confusion than it solves, and takes some of the beauty of the language from those who do adopt it. Everyone loses.

The funny thing about language, is it adapts itself, regardless of people who try to manipulate it on political or ideological grounds. English has gained hundreds of words even within living memory, as new things need new words to describe them with.

Those that want to change things merely because they are old, want to rob us of the continuity of thought and communication, which has all been piled up into the present. Nobody can understand the English language properly without understanding the context in which it has been formed this last 1000 years or so. It is that development that gives the language its poetry.

What is so confusing about "colour"? That is plain spelling, as near to phonetic as English gets. Isn't "Monday to Friday" more simple and elegant than "Monday through Friday"?

The idea that americanisms simplify the language, or somehow make it easier to understand, is a load of rubbish frankly. The changed spellings are usually no closer to a phonetic representation, and the culturally developed "isms" are as nonsensical as any other regional dialects I am afraid. Where conventions have been consciously and willfully changed, they do not contribute anything meaningful. They just seem to be done to be different, regardless of how much sense it makes.

[Dax]

Granted, I agree that a rule of language should help clarify communication.. But have you considered what an unnecessary rule change does to communication? The most important thing about a standard of any kind, is that it is agreed on. Without that, a standard is useless.

What purpose is there in having more than one method of spelling the same words? Especially when those who advocate new, uglier spellings know full well they will not be universally accepted.

So changing spellings for their own sake simply creates more confusion than it solves, and takes some of the beauty of the language from those who do adopt it. Everyone loses.

The funny thing about language, is it adapts itself, regardless of people who try to manipulate it on political or ideological grounds. English has gained hundreds of words even within living memory, as new things need new words to describe them with.

Those that want to change things merely because they are old, want to rob us of the continuity of thought and communication, which has all been piled up into the present. Nobody can understand the English language properly without understanding the context in which it has been formed this last 1000 years or so. It is that development that gives the language its poetry.

What is so confusing about "colour"? That is plain spelling, as near to phonetic as English gets. Isn't "Monday to Friday" more simple and elegant than "Monday through Friday"?

The idea that americanisms simplify the language, or somehow make it easier to understand, is a load of rubbish frankly. The changed spellings are usually no closer to a phonetic representation, and the culturally developed "isms" are as nonsensical as any other regional dialects I am afraid. Where conventions have been consciously and willfully changed, they do not contribute anything meaningful. They just seem to be done to be different, regardless of how much sense it makes.

With regard to American vs British spellings.  According to Webster's Dictionary, the correct spelling is "color" however "colour" is an accepted variant.  The Oxford English Dictionary gives the spelling "colour", with "color" listed as a perfectly acceptable variant.  If the venerable OED has no difficulty with various spellings of certain English words, I fail to see why anyone else would.  Unless anyone feels that the OED is inaccurate.

We do not use the English of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Dickens, Poe, Kipling, Shaw, et al.; and we believe that their use of the tongue, however beautiful, is quaint.  We acknowledge that they contributed to a language that has developed through the centuries.  But I do disagree with the notion that this language has achieved perfection and that any further changes should be discouraged.  I also feel that there has been an overemphasis on the form and structure of the language, at the expense of developing it as a means of expressing thought.  I suspect that this attitude began in the 18th century, with Dr. Johnson -  a man singularly resistant to change.  I quote from his plan for his dictionary, as relayed to the Earl of Chesterfield:  "But the chief rule which I propose to follow is, to make no innovation without a reason sufficient to balance the inconvenience of change; and such reasons I do not expect often to find. All change is of itself an evil, which ought not to be hazarded but for evident advantage; and as inconstancy is in every case a mark of weakness, it will add nothing to the reputation of our tongue."

Frankly, I think our Sam had a lot of unresolved issues.

For our purposes, as a sign of mutual respect, international goodwill and general good fellowship, I propose the following Law:

"Not to criticize the grammar and orthography of other Steampunkers.  That is the Law.  Are we not Men?"

[Mr. Pickles]

I have always liked the following quote on English:

Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages, it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and goes through their pockets.

Maybe we should learn Esperanto, it's regular and somewhat phonetically based.    Doesn't Websters add several words a year to the lexicon? 

Mr. Pickles

[Clym Angus]

For our purposes, as a sign of mutual respect, international goodwill and general good fellowship, I propose the following Law:

"Not to criticize the grammar and orthography of other Steampunkers.  That is the Law.  Are we not Men?"

Well it could be argued, that if a man cannot find fault with a well made point he whole heartedly disagrees with, then he will inevitably move onto it's construction, in order to turn defeat into a pirric victory.

I'm still of the mind that if the point is made and understood however badly expressed, man has a duty to deal with the point first. If the point is so badly put as to render meaning impossible then of course clarification is required. As I said earlier however restricted access to the codex of language, slang, foreshortening etc. Can be spawned from purpose as well as ignorance, and the immediate assumption of ignorance may be (in certain cases) some what premature.

[Pheobsky]

For our purposes, as a sign of mutual respect, international goodwill and general good fellowship, I propose the following Law:

"Not to criticize the grammar and orthography of other Steampunkers.  That is the Law.  Are we not Men?"

-but yet when one cannot fathom the meaning of a post made should one not question its intention? Without criticism one may not necessarily see the flaws which reside within oneself, and so I disagree with your proposed law, simply on the grounds of learning.

However I am of the mind that unwarranted criticism, is pointless banter which's only end is to vex & cause strife amongst one another; so let us criticise when we see great ills, but hold our tongue and be tolerant over simple mistakes.
Lastly above all we must remain civil to one another.

[Sir Ratchetspanner]

Dr Johnson was right.. To an extent.

"But the chief rule which I propose to follow is, to make no innovation without a reason sufficient to balance the inconvenience of change;"
With you so far Doctor.. Taking U's out of words has only served to provide two competing standards, and since neither has any real pressing reason to be adopted, this situation could remain indefinately. A clear case of an unneccesary change causing nothing but inconvenience and confusion.

"and such reasons I do not expect often to find. "
Maybe, maybe not. Society rapidly needs NEW words, and definitions tend to shift, but spellings stay the most consistant of all, and probably for good reason.

"All change is of itself an evil,"
Okay, you have lost me there Doctor. Go take your pills and lay down in a dark room until dinner.

" which ought not to be hazarded but for evident advantage; and as inconstancy is in every case a mark of weakness, it will add nothing to the reputation of our tongue."

Now we are talking sense again! Inconsistancies and double standards do nothing to aid communication, and are just a hassle for everyone who attempts to put any effort into writing anything correctly.

Bassically, I believe that "American English" cannot be seen as a legitimate branch of the english language. Either it is a different language altogether, or it is nothing but a local dialect which should not be used in formal documents. So take your pick. Call it "american" and stop taking it for granted that the english speaking world can neccesarily understand you, or burn all the american dictionaries and use English English for formal and official use. You can't have it both ways.

There simply cannot be two official standards of the same language. That breaks the entire definition and intention of language. Dictionaries exist of yorkshire dialect, but you don't see me trying to pretend those corruptions are as legitimate as the real standard. Why should american speakers be allowed to do that just because there are lots more of them?

[Tinkergirl]

Dear, Sir Ratchetspanner,

The original point of this thread was, I believe, to express a little despair at a potentially creeping invasion of posts so poorly written that the meaning was unfathomable.  That, I can wholeheartedly empathise with, as I believe that if you wish to say something to someone, then you should make an effort to make yourself understood.  Not even Steampunk fans have yet perfected a mind-reading hat (or if they have, it has not been made public ) and so in this - a place of written communication - a certain common ground must be aimed for.

However, while I personally find the ongoing friction between adamant users of color versus colour, thru and through, and aluminium vs aluminum, simply amusing, I really don't think that it creates a barrier to understanding so terrible that it cannot be overcome. 

I've only done a little linguistics at university, so I'm sure there are others who could no doubt step in here with more authority, however languages fragment, shatter, reform and mutate at a daily rate that is quite astonishing - and there is no such thing as 'standard' English to compare American English to.  All social formations create their own languages as a part of group identity - some moreso than others.  The mystical words of secret societies, the injoke catchphrases of sci-fi fans, the confusing lingo of computer experts, the unintelligible terminology of sailors, the harsh insults of leetspeak - all of these variations engender a sense of community and oneness amongst the users of these learned phrases. 

That America, in its strive for independence and coupled with its previously harrowing distance, created its own community gelling variant of English is not only understandable - it is almost unavoidable.  I'm personally amazed that it is not more distinct from our current variety of English - but then again, so many American words now get banded around over here, that perhaps it is us moving more towards their variant than anything else.

Lastly, anyone who believes that there is a 'standard' English with which to compare all others to, is deluding themselves.  There are certain understood commonalities but just as every town has their own slang, every region has their own turn of phrases - every gang of schoolkids has their own cool words and insults, every time someone speaks or writes in this country - they're more often than not giving the English language another nudge in a new direction.

All this - coming from a Scot.  *laughs!*

I do, however, agree very strongly with Mr Dax - civility will get us all a lot further than berating the English of others.  As long as we are understood, then we have achieved our goal.

[Sir Ratchetspanner]

The important thing about slang and dialect is that the people using it always KNOW it is language for a limited audience. When you need to communicate with a wider audience, anybody with any sense drops the dialect. Even if you suspect people will understand you anyway, you do your best to make sure you can be understood easily. It doesn't matter what kind of dialect or slang, or social vocabulary it is, people are aware of the boundaries of that part of their language.

The parts of the language that remain.. Those which are considered universal, or close to it, are the real "standard English". It may have pretty grey edges, and it may mutate, but only fairly slowly. It takes a long long time for a change to language to achieve international recognition. However, in many cases we can definitely say if something is inside or outside of it.

None of us speak "standard English", but we tend to be aware of when we stray beyond it and use specialist terminology. The less legitimate parts of our language are often the most fun parts, and sometimes the best thing for conveying a particular emotion perhaps. Our language would be much poorer if we avoided using anything but the most universal vocabulary.

But obviously, there are times when we know it is best to stick to the most standardized form we can manage. The trouble with American English, is this distinction does not exist. Americans rarely drop their local linguistic habits, even in a definitely international setting. This is deliberate. There has been a deliberate attempt to change the official standard of English in America. The dictionaries, the teaching in schools, the language used in official documents.. All of these things conspire to create a language which is very much like English, but not quite the same thing, yet passed off as the genuine article.

It deliberately damages the value of standard written English. "standard" English is always going to be more limited than the wider scope of the language, but what use is it if we cannot even agree on how to spell everyday words? It is that kind of thing that makes some people doubt the existence of a standard in the first place. It is a very bad precedent, and the problem is getting worse, not getting better.

[Cort Harbord]

I think that what's at issue is the difference between written and spoken language. They serve different purposes and so have different standards. Attempting to apply a universal standard for written English to the way it is spoken is futile. Part of the issue here is that this is a written forum with an informal,  conversational, back and forth rhythm that is more like a verbal setting, but it is becoming more and more prevalent, and so, I think, an interface where the language evolves.

[Anaesthesius]

For our purposes, as a sign of mutual respect, international goodwill and general good fellowship, I propose the following Law:

"Not to criticize the grammar and orthography of other Steampunkers.  That is the Law.  Are we not Men?"

I think the thread has strayed a bit, though I'm pleased to see such a sustained civil discussion.  It proves this forum really is more lettered, overall, than much of the Aethernet.  I don't mind if people botch spelling or omit an apostrophe once and a while, or more often if English is their second language.  If my Yankee spellings are bothersome, I will try to avoid them. 

However, I must stand against the style of a certain minority of posters who seem to treat forums as chatrooms or IM sessions.  My suggested rule: If your post is a single word, phrase, or anything other than a complete sentence, please refrain from posting. 

It's a flexible rule, of course, but there is no need to reply to every post simply to express agreement or appreciation.  Such threads are fragmented, difficult to read, and have low information content for their length.

[Flynn MacCallister]

And what exactly is wrong with using the word through in the context of a phrase such as "We are open Monday through Friday"??

Would you rather we say it like: "We are open from Monday to Friday"? Because either way it's getting the exact same message across.

I haven't yet worked out how to put a Monday through a Friday, so I am forced to assume that the "through" in this sentence started life as a "through to", probably with a "from" trailing before, perhaps to make it more clear that the days or dates presented were inclusive of the endpoints, or maybe even to make the phrase seem more friendly and eager to serve (well, I find "we are open from Monday through to Friday" more friendly and welcoming than just "we are open from Monday to Friday", which is really a little flat). I don't like it because it doesn't make sense.

In much the same way, I have a mild dislike for signs along the lines of "use both ticket windows". How?

[Sir Ratchetspanner]

Yes, the conversation does seem to have strayed off the topic of english use on this forum specifically, but I think it is more interesting to discuss language trends in the wider world, and it avoids pointing fingers at each others english skills, so keeping it generalised helps keep it civil, I feel.

The internet (and to some extent, text messaging too) encourages us to use spoken langauge habits in written form, but no matter how colloquial our writing gets, some habits of spoken langauge are still avoided. Nobody types "well urr..  what i mean to say, is like... you know." Even if they might say that.

But, there is lots of precident and examples avaliable for using english in shorter peices. Obviously, snail mail ettiquete provides an example for how to compose an email. Even if we avoid the most formal methods, we still tend to start with a greeting, and sign off in some way at the end.

For forums, I quite agree that there is a minimum post length for the format, and also a maximum. Obviously these are not set in stone, but for general conversation the usual length is between one full sentence, and perhaps several paragraphs.

There are also good examples of how to use fragmented english. To take the "monday to friday" example being discussed, you may see a small sign in a shop window which merely says "open monday to friday". This is the shortest the message can get, without breaking the rules of grammar or shortening words. For a more verbose message however, perhaps contained within a proper written paragraph, would go more like "We are open from monday to friday" or "We are open from monday through to friday. That is probably the thing which irks me about "monday through friday". It is not the correct form, neither is it the shortest and easiest.

Adapting language for forums has many aspects, but I think most of the changes are fairly subtle. For example, we tend to use shorter paragraphs, because the wide 4:3 screen aspect ratio makes it harder to scan across lines in thick blocks of text. I suppose what I am trying to say, is that adapting our style for the internet doesnt need to involve any real butchery.

[Tinkergirl]

Spoiler: A post that is longer than I had indended, and on the ongoing UK/American English discussion which may not now be at the forefront of the thread. (click to show/hide)

Well, if installation wizards are anything to go by (and generally I admit that they aren't) then American English is quite distinct from UK English - and should be seen as a very similar, but ultimately different language.  It's just terribly handy for a significant portion of the Western world that there are languages that share so much that if you know one, you can make yourself understood in the others.  I notice, also, that no-one mentions the Australians and their Australian English - theirs too is probably as distinct in places.

I have to thank the American English speakers who have contributed to this thread for being so very levelheaded on this subject, as some might have taken parts of the thread as an attack on a language that they were brought up with, and have had no option to change, nor desire to do so.  Thank you.

As you so clearly identified, Sir Ratchetspanner, all languages bear the weight of the history before them - and in this case the differences between American English and UK English, and the manner in which they came about, is yet another historical wrinkle to add to the richness of these languages.

This forum has never been declared a UK English forum, nor an American English forum, or any other variety of language specific forum - it is international.  While the majority of posters can read and write in some form of English-derived language, there have been the occasional French or French-Canadian threads and some posts in other (generally European) languages.  It is only the sheer weight of numbers that has us using some form of English here.  Indeed, were I to go by the majority rule, I (and the rest of the forum) would be required to use American English, alternating between Virginian and Californian affectations depending on which of the two majority States had been the most frequent visitors that day (there's not much between them in the stats).

Thankfully (as my American English is probably quite poor, and my knowledge of local dialects of the United States even worse) we don't have any sort of language rule here.  If you feel that you have put the effort in to be understood by the reader you seek to converse with, then all is well, after all.

As an aside, does anyone know if this sort of discussion arises between other similar but different languages?  South American variants of Spanish?  Canadian French?  The (recently re-embraced) English variants used in India?  Or how about the multiple languages of China?