BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 07:06 PM

"Hoi polloi" actually means the riff-raff, the plebs. Interesting that so many people believe, erroneously, that it means the exact opposite. Maybe "hoi" sounds a bit like "high"...

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 06:49 PM

While I don't correct incorrect spelling or grammar, I do notice it, but have come to accept it without dwelling on it. I still haven't gotten used to seeing, "I could care less," though.

Though you're OK with "haven't gotten". Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: mayomick
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 02:09 PM

proofread - one word.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Airymouse
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 11:59 AM

I admit that I carefully avoid "the hoi" polloi, but I've always been bothered by the reason. Had I said to you, "I'll meet you in the alcove," would you have said, in the original language "al" meant "the" so you should have said, "I'll meet you in alcove?"

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 10:45 AM

What can be really annoying is when you write something correctly, and it gets "corrected" into something that is wrong - especially when the computer does the "correcting".

I don't think anyone has pointed out that "the hoi polloi" , which has turned up in at least one post, is strictly speaking a solecism, since hoi means the, so you are saying "the the many". But that's one case where I tend to think the wrong version actually sits better in English than the right one.

There's a distinction between mistakes that don't mess up the meaning, and those which do - such as the one demonstrated in the title of "eats, shoots and leaves".

The one time perhaps when it's always justified to be a stickler for accuracy is when picking up grammatical or syntactical errors made in the course of correcting others.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: PHJim
Date: 16 Jul 15 - 09:41 AM

While I don't correct incorrect spelling or grammar, I do notice it, but have come to accept it without dwelling on it. I still haven't gotten used to seeing, "I could care less," though.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,bbc
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:39 PM

I just ordered a teeshirt that reads as follows:

Let's eat Grandma!

Let's eat, Grandma!

Punctuation saves lives!


Love it!

(I realize this is punctuation, rather than spelling.)

Best,

bbc

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 01:23 PM

""Better late than pregnant""

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM

Tee hee!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 12:55 PM

And, apart from never starting a sentence with a conjunction, avoid cliches like the plague.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 11:30 AM

By the way, my yardstick for writing clear, plain, understandable English is George Orwell's essay, "Politics and the English language" from 1946, which you may read here.

His six rules:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

I particularly like Rule no. 6!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 11:24 AM

The rule against not splitting an infinitive was always a red herring - an artifical and silly construct invented by grammatists with a Latin background. It was roundly debunked by the Plain English Society and similar organisations many years ago.

"To boldly go..." is a perfectly acceptable construction.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 10:30 AM

To constantly annoy.....
or

Constantly to annoy.....

We've probably reached the point now where the split infinitive ( if such a thing exist) is the accepted, even preferred, version.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:20 AM

Ahah, "irony". Don't get me started...:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 08:18 AM

"It's OK Steve, I doubt I am the only one appreciating your examples without comment."

In that case, I intend to completely desist from providing any more, as I have no desire to constantly annoy everyone. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 07:23 AM

When I was at school 3 score years ago, spelling, punctuation and grammar (SPG) were drummed into us daily. Also my mother was a English teacher, and would read through my homework to make sure I'd got all the SPG correct.
When my kids, now in their 30s, were at school, it seemed it didn't matter any more. I once asked my daughter's primary teacher why she hadn't corrected my daughter's mistakes. "Oh, we have to let them express themselves, you know". Well thanks, but neither of them have ever caught up, and still don't know all the "rules" of SPG.
My husband is moderately dyslexic, so I do quite a lot of proof-reading for him, as he writes a lot of official reports. I've written him a guide to usage of apostrophes but he still doesn't get it!
I am not too bothered by errors in posts on Mudcat, but I do think it is important to get official documents for publication correct, and it does annoy me to see such publications littered with errors on occasion. Even designing our Folk Festival brochure, it can do with 3 pairs of eyes reading through it to spot any errors of SPG or fact, or inconsistencies of formatting.
And you can turn Apple's very annoying auto-correct predictive text off!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 05:51 AM

It's OK Steve, I doubt I am the only one appreciating your examples without comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 04:31 AM

I take it Doug was off school when irony was taught?

Yeah. That's why my shirts always looked so creased.
?;-)

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket stuttering
Date: 15 Jul 15 - 03:12 AM

I take it Doug was off school when irony was taught?
😎

This Musket has A levels in language and literature but tends to prefer reading the other Musket's posts for ease of text than my own.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:57 PM

Are we not trusted or allowed to edit for a missing word or run on sentence due to a technical reason, or because of some sort of feared reason?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:00 PM

Split infinitives, insofar as they exist at all (they don't because "to" is not part of the infinitive) are not incorrect and never have been. The best thing is to just get on and to freely use them with abandon.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 08:37 PM

My general feeling as a moderate dyslexic is that the improvement of this forum by adding a spell check has been paramount.

Grammatical mistakes are often the result of incomplete editing and failing to proof read.

For those who make up their own syntax I say let it be. Polite indications of correcting someone's means of expression should be in in the form of a question such as "did you mean to say?".

I bet half of the ungrammatical examples here are intentional as in a take off of a dialect.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 07:08 PM

Yet to this day, I don't think I actually know what a split infinitive is...


.... to (learn and) coherently assess ....


Assuming these two extracts are from the same Musket, there you have it.

Not criticising or even commenting - just pointing it out.


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 10:49 AM

You could have got away with that, Steve, I didn't notice!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 10:15 AM

Well it was correct, though perhaps a bit on the labyrinthine side, I suppose. I'll try less hard.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 09:04 AM

Steve, if all your sentences were like that second one I would stop reading your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 06:08 AM

Yes and I know there should have been a comma after "Shimrod"!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 06:06 AM

It's very tempting, Shimrod with people like that. Their lack of attention to good English is extra evidence of their overall idiocy, and, just occasionally, it could be deemed appropriate, if a bit mischievous, to use it against 'em! We're only human, after all...

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 05:11 AM

On another board, I've just spotted a message, from a male correspondent, claiming that men are more intelligent than women (!) The message contains gross spelling mistakes (e.g. "ime" for I'm) and is completely un-punctuated. I could have commented - but that would have involved setting up an account and logging-in etc., and I really couldn't be bothered. Nevertheless, I would have relished picking that moron up on his spelling and grammar!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: DMcG
Date: 14 Jul 15 - 12:59 AM

I see posting as essentially conversational rather than formal documents. If you you were to correct people's grammar and poor phrasing as they spoke it would be extremely offensive and you would rapidly lose friends.

So I think you should never correct these slips unless people are demonstrably confused, and even then tact should be used. To take a specific example: on a recent thread someone referred to "a small majority" when they meant "a small minority". There was certainly scope for misunderstanding but everyone realised what was meant so it went uncorrected, and I think rightly so.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Mo the caller
Date: 13 Jul 15 - 01:32 PM

It's all too easy to make a mistake when typing, even though I know when to use there, their, they're, etc.
So I wouldn't correct anyone else.
When I use a 'quote' button in my reply I might respell a word, or I might not.
Some errors do really trip the reader up though, it can be hard to understand a post.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Jul 15 - 05:53 AM

I once received a Facebook message, two days after my Birthday. It stated, "delayted Birthday Wishes". LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:53 PM

pissed off

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:52 PM

Mrs GUEST says that the pharmacist will piss off the prescriber by querying the prescription. GUEST was once, many years ago, handed one back across the counter with "I'm sorry I can't dispense on this". Presciber was really pissed when that message was passed on (he thought it would be taken to the pharmacy two doors down).

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:41 PM

Alternatively, note that 97% of UK prescriptions were, by last March, electronic. (Source PPA)

That said, lazy scripting used to be a legitimate mistake and near miss concern up till recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 03:01 PM

Take your pick, cousin guest;)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:56 PM

often leave pharmacists in doubt

Is that GPs and high street pharmacists or hospital doctors and pharmacists ?

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:52 PM

OK, there were two, find another and the round of beer is on Shaw:)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,6.24
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 01:08 PM

To be honest guest I think he meant the illegible thing.No harm, but does rise a smile.We all do it,it's karmic a lot of times too.8)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:57 PM

"Pre", of course, Mr. Shwa?
:)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM

I hate to point a little something out to you, Guest, but it's...oh, never mind....

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 12:31 PM

And, then there is legibility in many doctors perscriptions. Such poorly written drug requests often leave pharmacists in doubt as to what is being perscribed. It is as if highly-trained doctors don't ven want to take the time to write important information clearly. Maybe they write in such a lazy manner to piss off pharmacists, or merely to defy their previous English teachers from grade three?

Thankfully, some doctirs now utilize computers to print out typed perscriptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM

I usually edit as I type and spot mistakes as they appear. The degree of rushdness - or how many glasses of wine - will often determine whether I spot them and edit before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:57 AM

I bet you checked that one, though. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 08:53 AM

If I want assistance in grammar and spelling, I ask for someone fond of red pens to proof read for me and am grateful for the time they spend doing so. I'm also happy to be corrected where appropriate, as it's useful for future reference. If I've spent time to compose something other than a dashed off bit of conversation on social media, then I don't usually *need* the red pen; though it's always a good insurance policy for anything that actually matters. If I'm just chatting on social media I will make mistakes and not care about it; I certainly can't be bothered to take time rereading posts like this, to ensure that I've not got an apostrophe in the wrong place or used 'too' instead of 'to'. It's not my concern if my mistakes annoy other people, just so long as the content is understandable. I imagine there are a good number of people who treat informal conversational kinds of writing similarly.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 06:51 AM

It is a shame when sensitivity makes us too nervous to open our mouths.

That's a very good point. Generally, I put some effort into what I type and check it over before sending (though my eyesight lets me down at times when it comes to Mudcat's little typing box). Posting in a forum sits awkwardly somewhere between formal writing and informal chat. It's a conversation in which our words are cemented on to a page rather than allowed to fly off into the ether, as they would if we were all down the pub, for example. I'd only pick up on errors if the guilty party was a pompous ass who was criticising my errors (where's Sailor Jack when you need him...? :-) ), or when someone starts a thread bemoaning poor English who then (almost inevitably) exhibits examples of it himself in his own posts, though occasionally a post may look so sloppy as to be almost rude. We also need to remember that spoken language moves on a lot faster than written, so, when we're here, are we writing to each other or are we speaking to each other? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket recruiting
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 05:31 AM

I may have mentioned before.

We have an education system in The UK. There is no reason why people cannot at least ensure spelling is checked on application forms.

I have been in Will's position many times. When sifting and long listing, poor applications mean they don't care enough so I cared just about enough to ensure their application was filed under B1n.

Oh, and the interview. If you got an interview.. Try going up at the end of sentences and see if I offer you the job or not.

Trawling through patient notes, as I used to do all the time, I used to shake my head at the fact that nursing is supposed to be a graduate profession these days. Considering a degree in anything is supposed to be recognition of being able to learn and coherently assess what you learn, I have views that nursing school Deans got both barrels when I "went off on one." The older I get, the more I question education. I left school with no English exam passes but I soon learnt that if you want to get on, try to impress.

Funnily enough, I am possibly coming out of retirement if a meeting next week works for me. One of the first tasks will be to recruit to a number of posts. Oh joy.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: Will Fly
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 05:04 AM

I don't care how people write - grammatically or otherwise - on a social forum like Mudcat. (What they write is a different matter).

In a different environment - before I retired from the day job - I was responsible for a great deal of staff recruitment and, over the course of many years, read thousands of application forms from prospective employees. I didn't do this on my own but always involved the person who would be the line manager of the person in the post, plus another senior member of staff from a different section. All in the interests of fairness, and all part of the recruitment policy.

One thing that caused regular comment and discussion, and occasional disagreement, was the presentation of the application form and the quality of the spelling, grammar, syntax, etc. My contention was that a well presented, neat and correctly spelled application - setting out what the person could bring to the job and why they wanted it, etc., etc. - was one indicator of their potential approach to work. Others felt - also quite rightly - that the content of the application was paramount, and that sloppy grammar and spelling could be discounted to a certain extent.

And, to a certain extent, we were all right! All indicators had to be taken into consideration, and it was, in the end, perfectly feasible to forgive some presentation errors if other and more important qualities shone through.

To put all that into context - just to show that we were weren't a bunch of nitpicking bores - I should point out that, for a single post advertised, we usually had between 100-150 applications. We had to try to bring this down to a shortlist of a maximum of 6-8 people - any more than this number was often difficult to manage - and we had to be able to justify our choices should any of the unselected applicants feel like phoning up and asking why they hadn't been shortlisted.

It was sometimes heartbreaking to have to reject good (and often desperate) people, but there was just one post available. Tougher than the judgement of Solomon - at least he only had to choose between two possibilities!

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: meself
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:54 AM

The 'Huh?' was aimed at the post about whatever it was about, not the one not about whatever it was about.

Subject: RE: BS: Etiquette ref. Poor spelling
From: GUEST,Musket sans Latin influence
Date: 12 Jul 15 - 02:39 AM

Aye and we have some whose posts can't be explained by dyslexia. And I don't mean typos.

Steve. - Fair point. Mixing with the hoi poloi these days, I should have taken a harder line when he started talking men talk before the ladies retired to the lounge for sewing and music.

Mind you, I like this middle class gig. When my lads were young, I'd amuse them by shouting "Mint sauce!" at lambs in the fields. My granddaughter has to put up with me shouting "Rosemary and garlic!"

Any road up. If Al is reading this, I'm at the Weymouth fish festival today. Be nice to bump into thee.