[:deadhorse:] of the day: English Nazism 101Follow

Well, maybe they could care less. After all, if they did care less, they wouldn't have posted a response in the first place!

The comma before the "and" has been optional as long as I can remember, and I'm almost fifty. I was taught that the comma is not necessary unless you want to give equal emphasis to each item in the list, or if it is needed for clarification (e.g., if the last item in the list has an "and" in it).

I was taught that it was optional. It always seemed to me like it was needed. IE.

One, two, and three.

vs.

One, two and three.


The second seems like "two and three" are one unit.

Your an moran!

Well darn.

I was basically saying the same thing you just did. A bit differently written, but with no criticism to the OP. I understood what he was writing about and I also understood why it bothered him. I simply wanted to get across what you did:


Vesaera wrote

"To be honest, I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this issue. Communication is very important, and being clear in your language use is, therefore, important. This means that having a standard is a good thing, since it eliminates ambiguity. However, I also think that language diversity is also fascinating, and that maybe we are too harsh on this issue at times. If you understand what people are saying, does it really matter whether "its/it's" is used perfectly?

It drives me nuts when I see things done incorrectly, but it also drives me nuts if I feel like I don't have enough space. I tend to be a perfectionist, with speaking, writing, driving, etc. and it irritates me when people are sloppy. But I'm not convinced that I *should* be irritated."


Apparently several people saw *my* post as either not contributing to the discussion begun by the OP, or that it should not have been written at all.

Thanks to those people for rating me down to "Default".




Take care all,
-Prometheus.

Edited, Sep 4th 2008 6:43pm by PrometheusUnbound

To Prometheus:

First, I apologize for writing something similar (although it was different enough that had I seen your post, I would still have posted mine). I was writing it while waiting for people to answer the phone, while I was at work, so it took a long time. You must have posted while I was writing, because I never saw your post.

I think the main difference (besides the tone) between my post and yours is that I'm still not convinced that insisting on rules is really beating people down. I vacillate a lot on this issue. On the one hand, there are many people, with many different Englishes. On the other, I think knowing some idea of a standard can be beneficial. After all, it's a lot easier to find spices if the labels are facing the right way.

As for why people rated your post down, I'd guess (and this is only a guess, as I just rated it up, not down) that it would not be due to what you were trying to say, but to the fact that it seemed like you were insulting people for taking the other side of the issue. You started off by saying you had laughed at the original post and then repeatedly told people that they should lighten up. I don't think you meant to be insulting, but I can see how others might have taken it that way.

To all:
I also didn't see Aurelius' response to Prometheus, which surely applies to what I was saying as well. To be honest, as much as netspeak and leet speak hurt my eyes, I'm not convinced that they *don't* count as legitimate variations. Is the text realm becoming a new culture or subculture?

It's easy to say that they're just lazy, but that could be said of ALL people who only use one dialect to speak/write, whether you're a lucky one raised with a close-to-standard variation or an unlucky one raised with a less prestigious dialect.

I'm pretty convinced, at least at the moment (possibly due to my Devil's Advocate nature) that good ideas are good, regardless of how they are expressed, and if we can understand them, even while cringing, they should be recognized as good ideas. Too often, we force linguistic skills into other disciplines, and I think this does stunt people who might be great at math or science, but not so great at language.

However, I think linguistic skills ARE necessary for our world, and that means knowing how to use language in different contexts, some of which may actually *require* using what is considered as more incorrect language. It also means knowing what different people - such as teachers, employers, government officials, publishing houses, etc. - demand in terms of language use, and learning the skills to succeed in those environments - not just one's own family.

This is really a clash between idealism: wanting to believe that expression shouldn't matter as long as it is understood, and realism: knowing what is required to succeed in the world as it is.

However, Aurelius made another very good point: that reading a lot can help with linguistic skills tremendously - not just for what he described, but also because most good novels ALSO involve people who use different dialects in the contexts where they apply. So, you don't just learn how to write properly, in the traditional sense of the word, but you also learn more about different dialects and when to use those kinds of dialects instead of the "standard".

I do disagree, though, that low linguistic skills indicate an inability to learn objectivity or to form one's own opinions. Linguistic skills are *skills*, and some people really can do better than others, just like swimming or playing a piano. It isn't just information gathering or learning how things work. Being objective and having intelligent opinions are not, in my opinion, tied to linguistic ability.

Finally, on the serial comma - I remember learning that, as veena pointed out, newspapers and magazines prefer to drop the comma, while books, scholarly journals, and literary magazines prefer to keep it. I also remember that this is because more popular forms of communication want to appear newer and hipper (although, newspapers try to avoid characters when possible, so that may also be an issue for them), while more traditional forms want to appear, well, more traditional. So, actually, I think this supports my opinion that it is something that is changing within the language.