So guys (spelling and grammar)

[Jim Brennan]

I think it's pretty easy to forgive someone who is writing in something other than their native tongue... and usually it's pretty easy to figure that out, especially on this board. Heck, you're writing one more language than I can

Absolutely. There are non-native English speakers on this board that have a better understanding of grammar and spelling than many native English speakers that I know.

 

[Stephen Mick]

If I'm too lazy to write three words instead of one to someone that may be giving me money, what does that say about my work ethic?

Nothing else needs to be said in this thread.

 

[diego1235467]

Absolutely. There are non-native English speakers on this board that have a better understanding of grammar and spelling than many native English speakers that I know.

I sure do

 

[Sad Max]

Nothing else needs to be said in this thread.

And yet I suspect that something else will be.

 

[Alex H.]

Code: a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings

So, as you can see, it explicitly says in the definition of code that secrecy is vital. If it is not secret, then it is not code.

That is some backwards logic. The definition you cite does not explicitly say that secrecy is vital. It says that code is often secret, not always. Nowhere does the definition say that secrecy is the defining factor. As has already been said, if you are going to cite a dictionary definition to support your argument, be sure the definition actually supports your argument.

Let's apply your logic to something else, just for kicks:

Hieroglyph: (noun) a stylized picture of an object representing a word, syllable, or sound, as found in ancient Egyptian and other writing systems.

So, as you can see, it explicitly says in the definition of hieroglyph that being Egyptian is vital. If it is not Egyptian, it is not a hieroglyph. (Never mind that the definition only cites Egyptian writing as an example among "other writing systems.")

HTML is a code. Like Morse, it is not secret. There are tons of books out there on it, and anyone can read up on HTML code and learn how to use it.

If people understand that "dunno" means "I don't know," then it becomes an actual part of the language. In this context, articulation is defined not by a few guys who protest the evolution of language, but by the community that actually uses the language. If they understand it, then it doesn't matter what you think.

It becomes a part of informal, spoken language and not a part of formal, written language. This is what is known as the vernacular (which can include slang). In the same setting, "ain't" is a wide-spread word in the vernacular. It even appears in the dictionary, but it is usually accompanied by a usage note clearly stating that it is not to be included in formal language. And in case you're wondering (probably not), "ain't" is an even-more-abbreviated version of "hain't," which is a contraction of "has not" or "have not." It is also a contraction of "am not" and, by application, "is not."

There are other words you might find out there that are widely used, perhaps regionally, that are very much a part of the vernacular but are not acceptable as formal and written communication. In Appalachia, we have "y'all" and "y'uns" (or "you'uns"). These come from Early Modern English, and the settlers moving into the region who were isolated from other influences (the southern Appalachian dialect is the closest dialect in the country to Early Modern English). They are contractions of "ye all" and "ye ones." While "y'all" is widely understood and used (y'uns much less so) a few hundred years later, it is still not accepted in formal, written language.

Authors will often write in the vernacular, but with specific intent. This is especially useful when writing dialog. The vernacular of a specific community must be included in character dialog in order to lend credence to the story's location. For instance, it would make no sense for a character in Hendersonville, NC, to say something like "that's wicked good." For a character in Boston, that makes perfect sense.

Formal documents that are not written as narratives should not use "ain't" or "y'all." Unless quoting something in particular, these still come across as lazy. "Dunno" applies the same way.

 

[Alex H.]

And yet I suspect that something else will be.

Dang. I had walked away mid-post (started before yours) to feed the dog and take her outside...

 

[Sad Max]

Sloppy use of language is frequently symptomatic of sloppy thinking. Should we be surprised?

 

[Jim Brennan]

I think it is important to understand that public forums like this can blur the lines between the written and spoken word for some people. It all starts to feel familiar and conversational at times, which can lead to a casual atmosphere. That can be a good thing.

But as I mentioned in an earlier post, context and intent are important. Slang and colloquialisms are a rich part of our collective language and are not inherently "wrong", and I don't that anyone is implying that they are. But they are usually used in an environment where they are universally acceptable and understood. The internet is not (in my opinion) one of those places because anyone, from anywhere, can read it. As C2V pointed out, in his part of the world certain phrases are heard and accepted as part of the language. But if you said some of them in my hometown of New York City, people might look at you funny. So if you are posting something on the internet it is helpful to bear that in mind. When the playing field is this wide, the more of an established framework we all stick to, the better off we are.

So, my rambling point is that while some people think that the internet is an okay place for sloppy writing, I would argue the opposite. Due to the nature of the potential audience, more, (not less), care must be taken to be clear if you want to be understood.

 

[Doc Bernard]

Code: a system of signals or symbols for communication b : a system of symbols (as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings

So, as you can see, it explicitly says in the definition of code that secrecy is vital. If it is not secret, then it is not code.

In order to further Jim's point that you have misconstrued his meaning, I will give yet another example of what a code can be.

Based on your strict definition, Building Codes and Electrical Codes are secrets. Not a chance! Everyone that is in construction must be familiar with codes and code compliance. There are no secrets involved there, it is spelled out in black and white, and many times in bold face type. So, never just read one singular meaning and apply it across the board. In this particualr usage, code means a set of rules that are to be followed in order to remain in compliance.
National Electrical Code example:

"210.25(A) Branch Circuits Serving Common Use Areas. All circuits serving common use areas and public use areas shall be served from house service equipment. Where buildings are multimetered, a separate meter for house equipment shall be required."

Now, exactly how and where to use what is being said here does take a bit of education, as do the rules for proper language usage. But this information is definitely NOT a secret.



Jester, I am scratching my head, however, at the tone you have adopted, in what is otherwise a civil and friendly discussion. (Well civil, other than the way you are communicating.) Or could it be you are using poor grammar to convey your meaning and it is coming off as rude?

 

[Jester2138]

OK, so I was trying not to browse back to this thread because this is a useless discussion, but I did and now I need to get some points across. You don't seem to be listening to my point. Perhaps you're too preoccupied with picking apart the errors in my logic to look at the big picture. BTW, before you quote that and act all triumphant, realize that logic is inherently flawed. Anyway, on with the debate.

"Better" is a subjective term based on criteria that may not be the same for everyone. Shorter and faster don't necessarily mean better. Similarly, a Big Mac is cheaper and faster than a prime rib steak. By your reasoning, a Big Mac is better than a prime rib. Everyone who thinks a Big Mac is better than a prime rib raise your hand... I thought so.

In this, you seem to have missed the concept that what defines better in one thing is different than what defines better in another. Yet, then I read:

You may think shorter and faster makes it better, I think it makes it makes one look lazy. That's not always bad, if writing something informally to a friend (or on a web forum, for that matter). But I would never dream of writing something even remotely official using words like "dunno". If I'm too lazy to write three words instead of one to someone that may be giving me money, what does that say about my work ethic?

So apparently you did understand that I knew what defines better in one thing is different than what defines better in another, but decided to pretend I didn't anyway? I don't get it.

I would never be lazy in my grammar when someone is paying me. But I'll be lazy when talking about cameras on online forums. As long as they understand me, who cares?

That makes absolutely no sense. Did you even read Jim's original post?

It does make sense. I read his original post twice (now a third time). Did you read mine? I'm saying that he can doubt that something is true all he wants but that doesn't change the fact that it is (referring to each generation thinking the next is inferior is some way).

And yet I suspect that something else will be.

Good, you must know that some people actually do care about their arguments being understood, even if they aren't agreed with.

That is some backwards logic.... As has already been said, if you are going to cite a dictionary definition to support your argument, be sure the definition actually supports your argument.

Conceded. I was putting together that post too rapidly... I should have paid more attention to it. Anyway, my point still stands.

Formal documents that are not written as narratives should not use "ain't" or "y'all." Unless quoting something in particular, these still come across as lazy. "Dunno" applies the same way.

Formal documents, 110% agreed. But an online discussion board post just ain't a formal document. Not in any way, shape, or form.

I think it is important to understand that public forums like this can blur the lines between the written and spoken word for some people....So, my rambling point is that while some people think that the internet is an okay place for sloppy writing, I would argue the opposite. Due to the nature of the potential audience, more, (not less), care must be taken to be clear if you want to be understood.

I 100% agree with you. Where I disagree is where you draw the line of sloppy. You guys seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the same amount of attention to grammar that is given to an essay or legal brief should be given to online posts. To me that is overkill.

 

[Jim Brennan]

It does make sense. I read his original post twice (now a third time). Did you read mine? I'm saying that he can doubt that something is true all he wants but that doesn't change the fact that it is (referring to each generation thinking the next is inferior is some way).

Your post implied that you disagreed with mine. Yet we were stating the same thing: That this phenomenon (people thinking that language is devolving) has been around for a long time. You did not seem to be citing an abstract concept of belief, but rather that my belief was incorrect. In fact, you emphasized it in a somewhat antagonistic way by saying "use the internet". I am still confused by that, since you agreed with what I said by making the same assertion yourself.

I 100% agree with you. Where I disagree is where you draw the line of sloppy. You guys seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the same amount of attention to grammar that is given to an essay or legal brief should be given to online posts. To me that is overkill.

Yes, you are misunderstanding me. I never said that. In fact , if you go back and read my first few posts, you will see that I do not feel that way at all. I belief, once again, that it is about context and intent.

But I have to say that, whether you realize it or not, there are people who are disagreeing with you that are industry professionals. I am only pointing that out to underscore that you never know when or where you are making an impression. You may see a forum like this as a backyard barbecue discussion with your friends. But what it can be is an opportunity to make a competent and professional impression. There are people on this forum that have hired me, and people that I have offered jobs, based in some way, on their posts.

That only takes 5% more effort. Why would you fight that?

 

[Doc Bernard]

I guess this whole discussion boils down to what opportunities you think a forum like this holds for you. If you consider this "just an online forum" and your goals are just hobby-level, then there is no real loss. But if you consider yourself a professional and enjoy the company of other professionals/business-minded individuals, then grammar and spelling do matter. The same applies if you aspire to be a professional.

If you only use correct language skills when someone is actually paying you, you may not get much real work. Everyone you come into contact with should be considered a potential paying client, whether it is online, in person or on the phone. But again, if you are wanting to do film production as a hobby, or a past-time, then I wouldn't worry about it.

And unfortunately, with the anonymity of the internet, all people who do not know you judge you based on just how/what you type, and what you say.

I am sorry if you consider speaking intelligently and correctly on a professional forum "overkill". I sure don't. I know about a few of the people here, and I would never want them to look at me as less than precise in what I do. Especially in what I do.

That's funny, Jim, we both basically said the same thing. Nice.

 

[Mike Harvey]

So apparently you did understand that I knew what defines better in one thing is different than what defines better in another, but decided to pretend I didn't anyway? I don't get it.

I would never be lazy in my grammar when someone is paying me. But I'll be lazy when talking about cameras on online forums. As long as they understand me, who cares?

No... you said "dunno" is was shorter and faster, thus it was better than "I don't know". Period. If I missed the caveat that what constitutes "better" was situational, fine. But you never stated that. You simply said "dunno" was better than "I don't know". If you did, please quote it.

It does make sense. I read his original post twice (now a third time). Did you read mine? I'm saying that he can doubt that something is true all he wants but that doesn't change the fact that it is (referring to each generation thinking the next is inferior is some way).

Then read it a fourth time, and slow down and read it... or else you need to quit intentionally misreading. His exact words were...

I am skeptical that this is a new phenomenon.

This means he doesn't believe that this phenomenon is new, or put another way, that he believes that this phenomenon is in fact old. That it has been going on for quite a while. You said...

Be skeptical all you want. It isn't new. It even has a name... Generationism. Use the internet.

and...

Right. And you can doubt it all you want. Yet somehow, it still remains true...

...which comes across as you disagree with his statement, even though you then turn around and agree with him. That is what doesn't make any sense.

 

[Sad Max]

Perhaps you're too preoccupied with picking apart the errors in my logic to look at the big picture. BTW, before you quote that and act all triumphant, realize that logic is inherently flawed. Anyway, on with the debate.

First of all, if you have made logical errors in constructing your argument, that's your problem. And it's your problem to fix, too. You are probably not doing a good job of painting the 'big picture' if you yourself are saying that the logic supporting your position contains errors.

Secondly, logic is not 'inherently flawed:' flawed logical arguments are inherently flawed. Don't assume that because you have constructed a non-functional logical proof, all logic is therefore non-functional. Logic is ultimately the application of a set of tools; complaining that 'logic is inherently flawed' when you are having difficulty with assembling a proof is precisely as intelligent as complaining that hammers are flawed because you personally have trouble using them to drive nails.

I would never be lazy in my grammar when someone is paying me. But I'll be lazy when talking about cameras on online forums. As long as they understand me, who cares?

If you feel that it's to your advantage to lead people to suspect that you're a doofus (I mean the general, non-specific 'you,' btw, not 'you,' Jester) then I guess no one ought to care. Most people prefer not to advertise themselves as doofuses, but tastes are known to vary. And it's true that it's unlikely to have any measureable effect upon your life. Unless someone around here might have considered involving you in the kind of work we discuss around here, and decided not to ask based upon your posts. Not that I'm suggesting that's particularly likely.

Good, you must know that some people actually do care about their arguments being understood, even if they aren't agreed with.

Your arguments are perfectly easy to understand, both where they are consistent and where they are non-functional.

Formal documents, 110% agreed. But an online discussion board post just ain't a formal document. Not in any way, shape, or form.

It's true, it ain't. I'm taking this to mean that you don't view this forum as an opportunity to make useful non-casual professional connections, in any way, shape, or form. Which is fine.

I 100% agree with you. Where I disagree is where you draw the line of sloppy. You guys seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the same amount of attention to grammar that is given to an essay or legal brief should be given to online posts. To me that is overkill.

Overkill? You make it sound as though there is actually some real effort involved.

 

[Mike Harvey]

Everyone step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. :violent5:

Anyone notice the irony that a thread about the proper use of written language has gone slightly astray because of somebody's inability to comprehend and properly use written language? Just thought I'd try and lighten this up a little.

(That is the proper use of "Irony", right?)

 

[Jim Brennan]

Everyone step away from the keyboard and take a deep breath. :violent5:

Anyone notice the irony that a thread about the proper use of written language has gone slightly astray because of somebody's inability to comprehend and properly use written language? Just thought I'd try and lighten this up a little.

(That is the proper use of "Irony", right?)

Yes. Yes it is.

 

[Luis Caffesse]

It seems that everyone has had an opportunity to make their point over and over again in this thread.
Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree, I suppose.

(and when we can't find a way to do that... we close threads)