Why should we stop correcting grammar? Why do we have so many different languages in the first place & so many people therefore can't communicate with most of the rest of humanity? Since we all came from a small group of common ancestors (allegedly) who presumably all spoke the same primitive language, how the hell did we wind up with the vast chasm between inflected & non-inflected, never mind odd quirks like glottal stops? (And yes, I'm just going to assume that everyone understands what I'm referring to; naughty me!) The author of the article frankly strikes me as being something of a berk. "being a good person is HARD." No it isn't. It's dead fucking easy. We all have our off moments, but it's not difficult to not be a self-absorbed, self-centred twit 99% of the time. Oh, wait, sorry, for him it is. So can I just point out that it's not "who'd o' guessed?!"; it's "who'd `a' guessed?!" The vagaries of pronunciation mean a lot of folk do indeed say "of", but the word you are abbreviating is "have". There, that's my grammar Nazi moment for this quarter out of the way! Spolling (sic) is a miner (sic) matter - it applies only to the written word. Grammar applies to both written & spoken, but remains a minor matter. HOWEVER! The point of both is that they are attempts to provide a structure to language that makes communication easier. Do you know what txtspk is? Do you know what l33t is? Have you come across the popular "mxeid wrods" meme / post? I can read them all, but my comprehension is slower, and I am more likely to misunderstand something, especially if I'm being rushed for some reason. People misunderstand each other easily enough as it is; you want to make it easier for that to happen?! There is always, if you are so inclined, pleasure in demolishing a badly constructed argument, whatever its weaknesses, whether it's bigotry & ignorance, false arguments such as strawman or ad hominem, etc. What? I said I was good, I never claimed to be nice; not the same thing! :p Random (i.e. outside of actual education) grammar correction, in my experience, always occurs online, but a large part of our education, both formal & informal and throughout our lives, comes through the written word. Spelling & grammar may be minor, but that doesn't equate to unimportant. Good is not the same as nice, simple is not the same as easy; a car is easy / not hard to learn to drive for most people, but a simple piece of machinery it is not! For the most part, it is not worthwhile correcting spelling or grammar; indeed, it can be counter-productive & you make yourself look a twit. One good reason for not doing it - you probably know nothing about the other person. They might be dyslexic. Stupid & ignorant - two words that also don't mean the same thing. Are they incapable of learning / understanding beyond a certain level? Has their education been disrupted? Almost certainly, either case is not their fault. But there are two reasons why I will savage someone. The first is someone trying to be superior - "sorry, you're claiming to be better than them & you can't even..." The second is hypocrisy. Hypocrisy should, in my view, always be challenged. It's easy to hammer both of the author's examples "Why dont the Muslins cant not LERN ENGLISH??????" Why should they when you obviously couldn't be bothered, pal? The immigrant-bashing grammar Nazi is even easier - "How come you're not correcting your fellow racist bigots for whom this is supposedly their FIRST language?" There's a third reason too, and it's why I deliberately used an aggressive word - "savage". The chances are you will have no useful effect whatsoever on the poster you are taking issue with. But the world is almost never bipolar. The light switch only goes on & off, the ballot paper may only have yes & no on it. But a thermostat has a range of settings, and a ballot paper usually has several choices. The world is rarely black & white. I hate preaching to the converted; it's pointless. I've a dear friend who nearly fell out with me. She's a bit of an eco-warrior, so frequently shares stuff from groups like Sea Shepherd. I don't like the killing of whales & dolphins, but I detest the hyperbolic garbage they put out & I'm on their side of the fence! Having eventually blocked them, I now won't see anything of theirs & I certainly won't support them. Well done, Sea Shepherd. The people who are going "Yeah!" already support you; the people going "No!" never will. It's all the shades of grey you want to influence. If you've pissed me off & I'm on your side, what have done with everyone else... In making any counter-argument, you are unlikely to influence an original strong opinion. But you may well influence those who are less certain. In attacking a poster's grammar, you are committing a minor ad hominem (it's the only time I'll willingly & knowingly do that), but if you can further weaken someone else's poor argument by making them appear ignorant / ill-educated, I'd say that's legitimate. In general, I wouldn't (& don't) bother to correct people, unless they ask for help. But in the scenario cited by the article? Far from "never", I'd go for the throat every time that I could us it as a supporting argument, or if language was their original point.
|