Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Any of you Grammar Nazis? Because I definitely am.

I just hate when people use leetspeek/n00bspeak/sms style typing when your talking. It makes them seem like they have down, :\.

Ie....

"omg r u lvl 30? Wut r u talkin about? lol noob."

For being a grammar nazi your grammar is not very good...

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

[The Willow Wisp]

I used to be a grammer nazi. Two things ended my grammar nazism: 1) something Mark Twain wrote in a letter on spelling reform, that I beleive can be applied here as well; and 2) the revelation that my spelling is ridiculously bad. I know what the word means and how to use it in a sentence, but I just can't seem to remeber how to spell them. Up until about two years ago, I spelled like a epileptic monkey with a hangover. Back then I could read it but when I try now all I can say is "damn....". I have never felt more sorry for my English teachers.

Here is a part of what Mark Twain wrote ,with the section I referenced bolded.

"If [you] will adopt and use our simplified forms... [W]e shall be rid of... pneumonia and... pterodactyl, and all those other insane words which no man... can try to spell... What is the real function of language...? Isn't it merely to convey ideas and emotions...? If we can do it with words of fonetic brevity and compactness, why keep the present cumbersome form?" -Mark Twain, to the Associated Press on the subject of spelling reform.

While his topic was the shortening of words, I think this is applicable to a good deal of grammar. Some grammar is perfect and keeps stuff running smoothly, but after a point it becomes cumbersome.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Maggarg - Eater of Chicke.

I'm still not sure what happened to that n.
I might have mistaken it for a chicken.

[ToonyMan]

I don't care about spelling, you might even be able to sell it off as art.

BUT YOU BETTER UPPERCASE THE M IN MY NAME.

[RedWarrior0]

Okay, TOONYmAN.

Not a Grammar Nazi, but punctuation helps. I just want to understand what's said.

[Jude]

Anyway, being a grammar nazi is dumb because it depends on you having a definition of "correct usage" that you hold everyone else to, but in fact all definitions of "correct" usage are entirely arbitrary and basically pulled out of someone's ass. The only way to determine truly "correct" usage is to observe how people actually use the language, and that is always different from how people with their panties in a twist think they should use the language.

Ermmm... no.

There is a 'correct usage' of grammar. We are not talking about how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Some people put the peanut butter on first, some put the jelly on first, each think they are 'correct' and the 'correct' way can vary based on who you ask... but with grammar there is only one way. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. For your sake, I really, really, really hope you are.

[Enzo]

I think in informal conversation, grammar takes a back seat to expressing your thoughts efficiently. I'm not defending L33tspeak, but imperfect grammar works if it conveys a point.

Sentence fragments are a good example. A very good example.

[Luke_Prowler]

Oi! What iz ya git takin' bout? Wat'z dis "gram-mar"? Ya 'oomies fightin ova 'ow ta talk and all des silly dings, by da time ya stop muckin' around, me boyz come in and stomp da lot a ya.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

Grammar is important because it is something that I am quite good at and many other people are not so good at. Also, speech is almost never grammatically correct because of the improvised nature of most conversation. I'm not including actual speeches under the heading of speech, as they generally have a script.

[Goron]

Anyway, being a grammar nazi is dumb because it depends on you having a definition of "correct usage" that you hold everyone else to, but in fact all definitions of "correct" usage are entirely arbitrary and basically pulled out of someone's ass. The only way to determine truly "correct" usage is to observe how people actually use the language, and that is always different from how people with their panties in a twist think they should use the language.

Ermmm... no.

There is a 'correct usage' of grammar. We are not talking about how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Some people put the peanut butter on first, some put the jelly on first, each think they are 'correct' and the 'correct' way can vary based on who you ask... but with grammar there is only one way. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. For your sake, I really, really, really hope you are.

No sarcasm. Please explain.

[Jude]

No sarcasm. Please explain.

Uhh....aw Christ. OK, if there is one right way to use English grammar and everything else is wrong, then what is that right way? And who decided it was right?

Hint: eventually my questioning is going to lead you to the conclusion that there is no "right way", in case you were wondering where this is going

[RedWarrior0]

There's a "proper" way, sure. But really, the point of language is TO CONVEY A F***ING THOUGHT. That's what gets me about the Grammar Hitler Youth. It's been stressed plenty of times on this thread. As long as people understand you, it works. Debate over. Any questions?

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Anyway, being a grammar nazi is dumb because it depends on you having a definition of "correct usage" that you hold everyone else to, but in fact all definitions of "correct" usage are entirely arbitrary and basically pulled out of someone's ass. The only way to determine truly "correct" usage is to observe how people actually use the language, and that is always different from how people with their panties in a twist think they should use the language.

Ermmm... no.

There is a 'correct usage' of grammar. We are not talking about how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Some people put the peanut butter on first, some put the jelly on first, each think they are 'correct' and the 'correct' way can vary based on who you ask... but with grammar there is only one way. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. For your sake, I really, really, really hope you are.

No sarcasm. Please explain.

Let's see... Jude apparently subscribes, to some degree, to descriptivist thought. You're arguing from a fairly strong prescriptivist position.

"Descriptivism" is an ideology which states that all language uses are valid so long as they convey their meaning to those familiar with them. This is, of course, absurd at its more extreme end because that would require that, say, ebonics, or chatspeak, or even 1337 be recognized as valid dialects/languages of their own.

"Prescriptivism" is the opposite, basically, stating that there are strict rules to a language that must be adhered to for the sake of being adhered to, regardless of whether or not a given deviation fails to get its meaning across. This too is absurd, though more because it arbitrarily decides the language at one point is correct, and cannot be deviated from in any way. Further, there isn't really any consensus amongst prescriptivists as to what the correct rules actually *are*.

I tend to fall on the prescriptivist side, because *illiteracy* is not a valid dialect, but otherwise ignore the more randomly labyrinthine and contested rules. Especially in casual conversation.

[Goron]

No sarcasm. Please explain.

Uhh....aw Christ. OK, if there is one right way to use English grammar and everything else is wrong, then what is that right way? And who decided it was right?

Hint: eventually my questioning is going to lead you to the conclusion that there is no "right way", in case you were wondering where this is going

Let me answer in plane English:
Wacob zoowal messonorus voloturb cuh jelfunt defmo. Makes sense right? I wrote it in English, because, according to you, English is whatever I want it to be because there is no "right way". And, I'd prefer if you spelled it wqy, not way, since again, according to you, no one can claim "way" is correct over "wqy".

Do you see where I am going with that? This time I have used sarcasm to show that your argument is a little silly.
Sure, there is not a magical deity that declares the English language should be like this or like that. But thats the same with anything.
Since the United States does not have an official language, we do not have an official agency dictating how American English should be used. Despite that, we have plenty of unofficial organizations that arbitrate our standard written English. You may consider school curricula and publishers as people 'with their panties in a twist' that pull the rules out of 'someone's ass' but I do not. The standard written English is derived by consensus and as such incorporates new trends and disputes, evolving over time.
This is unlike in French where there is an official group, the French Academy, that regulates the language as the sole decider of whats right and wrong.

Our spoken English is to the best of my knowledge completely un-regulated, even on an unofficial level but it is naturally derived from standard written English (Notice American schools don't teach you how to speak, only write?).

So, to directly answer your two questions

OK, if there is one right way to use English grammar and everything else is wrong, then what is that right way?

Standard written English

And who decided it was right?

A consensus among publishers and schools which is derived from common, popular usage and trends.

to finish:
Xeocatal mewyer zolfumbulto tur nolum haf du mehchul remy.

[Goron]

Anyway, being a grammar nazi is dumb because it depends on you having a definition of "correct usage" that you hold everyone else to, but in fact all definitions of "correct" usage are entirely arbitrary and basically pulled out of someone's ass. The only way to determine truly "correct" usage is to observe how people actually use the language, and that is always different from how people with their panties in a twist think they should use the language.

Ermmm... no.

There is a 'correct usage' of grammar. We are not talking about how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Some people put the peanut butter on first, some put the jelly on first, each think they are 'correct' and the 'correct' way can vary based on who you ask... but with grammar there is only one way. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. For your sake, I really, really, really hope you are.

No sarcasm. Please explain.

Let's see... Jude apparently subscribes, to some degree, to descriptivist thought. You're arguing from a fairly strong prescriptivist position.

"Descriptivism" is an ideology which states that all language uses are valid so long as they convey their meaning to those familiar with them. This is, of course, absurd at its more extreme end because that would require that, say, ebonics, or chatspeak, or even 1337 be recognized as valid dialects/languages of their own.

"Prescriptivism" is the opposite, basically, stating that there are strict rules to a language that must be adhered to for the sake of being adhered to, regardless of whether or not a given deviation fails to get its meaning across. This too is absurd, though more because it arbitrarily decides the language at one point is correct, and cannot be deviated from in any way. Further, there isn't really any consensus amongst prescriptivists as to what the correct rules actually *are*.

I tend to fall on the prescriptivist side, because *illiteracy* is not a valid dialect, but otherwise ignore the more randomly labyrinthine and contested rules. Especially in casual conversation.

While I see what you are saying... I think it is irrelevant to the argument at hand. If I was a grammar nazi that thought everyone had to do it my way or the highway, I'd fit your description.

I am not.

I believe any way of communicating a point is valid and any dialect is fine to use. I just do not think they are 'proper'. They work, but they are wrong.
Just as I feel people slightly under the age of 21 are just as well off drinking alcohol as those over 21, but I do not think it is 'proper' within the law.
Get what I mean?
I can respect the 'proper' usage of grammar and language yet understand that there are other ways to communicate