I wasn’t trying to imply that I am in any way being rude or condescending to anyone. I understand that English is a complicated language and I admit that I don’t fully understand the rules. I’m just saying that I try to do what I hope anyone would do for me, point out (as politely as possible) anything they don’t understand in my writing. I can then either change it, if it needs to be changed, or open up a dialouge about my artistic choices.
KnNashua July 3, 2013
Purposeful linguistic creativity and mistakes are indeed different, but it only matters if you are joined in cooperative writing. It is a disservice of such rudeness to disrespect the subject matter and expression of opinion when it is discernible by hijacking the conversation when one shifts to the inane conversation of how someone should have properly expressed themselves. The demonstration of proper grammar in ones own writing is the proper route to employ.
aggietrish10 July 3, 2013
If it seems other writers have a reason for the language choices they make, I let it be and try to understand their reasons. However, if I feel they made an unintentional mistake, I point it out. I agree that language should be allowed to change, but I also believe that any change should not be made out of ignorance.
aggietrish10 July 3, 2013
I think there’s a difference between misusing grammar because you’re trying to be creative, and doing so because you’re misinformed. I’ve occasionally created words or tweaked grammar rules in my own writing in order to achieve a better flow, or make a point. But if I were using something incorrectly without knowing it, I would hope that somebody would point it out. I approach others’ writing in the same way.
Faku Yu July 3, 2013
I find myself thinking that they are allowed to not be passionate about language. And that correcting them is silly and only serves to upset them. They are, in my honest opinion, allowed to be wrong without being taunted for it.
Miranda Farmer July 3, 2013
I do find myself bothered by the misuse of grammar, though not because of clarity or any desire to appear more intelligent. It’s more an upset that things are out of place, like the toilet seat left up or the refrigerator door swinging open. I’ve been taught certain rules, so I intend to follow them to the letter. I used to believe it was my sole duty to eradicate poor grammar usage.
But then I realized that ain’t never gonna happen.
Jani K July 3, 2013
I agree with him in that context, convention and circumstance is all. In Finland I teach my students to do well in the matriculation exam they will be doing, which does not only measure language skills but also logic and knowledge about the world. During the first course not so much, but by the seventh course we will focus on just that. Nowadays they will also learn to speak English, so that is a focus as well.
rgainsburg July 3, 2013
Yes, it is a deviation from a spelling norm (which, as you may know, Shakespeare did all the time), and not a deviation from grammar norms. However, you did not make this distinction 🙂 in your original comment.
Fry seems to me to be implying that by focusing excessively on the structure of language, the creativity it is capable of expressing becomes endangered. A greater good can become sacrificed for the sake of a lesser good.
Peter Wiegman July 3, 2013
oops, did it again, shear is sheer :).
Peter Wiegman July 3, 2013
But the fact I can decypher leetspeak, even at an almost natural level, does not make it easier to understand. A well written sentence immediately conveys the emotional message the writer intended it to have, as this removes the gap between writer and reader. When the writer is careless, writes things in ambigious ways or simply uses words and grammar incorrect ly it is shear luck when the reader gets it the first time, it is not quality. I stress again, writing ‘simply’ does not improve reading
Peter Wiegman July 3, 2013
Indeed I did mean ‘distinction’. But that is a spelling error, not a grammar error ;). Having both Dutch and English as native languages I have studied how I form language, and for instance how some sentences are poorly expressed in Dutch, but easily in English or vice versa. It is fascinating how our emotions trickle down into words, and the problems that can arise. But the thing is, that is only half the process. Language is inherrently intended to be understood, easily. I can read ‘leetspeak’
Peter Wiegman July 3, 2013
It is when you appreciate the structure that exists that you can enjoy throwing it around, playing with the rules, and watching the effect it has on you as a reader. You can say the same thing in a hundred different ways and convey a different message each and every time. It is much like music, the notes do not make the music, it is the order in which they are put. Then again, most of today’s people seem to enjoy uninspired music, so I suppose I should not be surprised the same goes for language
Peter Wiegman July 3, 2013
At the very least your time estimate is poor. As English is my second language, I wasn’t taught any proper grammar until much later, and, mind you, I didn’t care at all for it. I did however study Latin and ancient Greek which were no doubt my greatest influence. Reading Tolkien’s LOTR cemented my love for structure and playing with structure. I will never forget the first time I read “as often as not”, such an odd and beautiful construction.
AgentNoOne July 3, 2013
I like this entry in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Don’t Panic, everyone. 🙂
Nathaniel Culbertson July 3, 2013
he’s right we do smarten up our language at times. i normally do it when when someone is being degrading or tryin to act intellectually superior to me. once i do this it becomes a game of how much can i anger and confuse them
Ed Fugg July 3, 2013
Your not fooling anyone, Fry. We’ll find you’re Achilles heal. In five minute’s or fuehrer.
Peter Vogel July 3, 2013
Exactly write. People make up the grammar as we go along (and we still do). The grammarians come along afterward and try to figure out what (if any) rules we’re following. Then come the grammar nazis who seem to operate under the impression that someone, somewhere wrote a specification for the English language and only they are following it. It reveals an enormous ignorance of the language.
Peter Vogel July 3, 2013
Your “beauty of the language” is, in fact, a passionate affection for whatever you learned of grammar in grade 6. The “beauty of the language” advocates just insist that, for some reason, the language reached perfection when they were children and should be frozen at that state: any change is evil. On that basis, we’d all still be talking like William Shakespeare did when he was growing up…but no one suggests we do that.
rgainsburg July 3, 2013
An apostrophe’d be an excellent start.
TrumpeterOnFire July 3, 2013
You’re looking for an apostrophe.
Brian Coffey July 3, 2013
It’s people ARE “nothing but snobs.”
Brian Coffey July 3, 2013
That video was one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
Rantomon July 3, 2013
You clearly place a lot of importance on your experience, I suspect it to be less than comprehensive and so whilst not entirely irrelevant you may require further study before drawing such definite conclusions.
Jayson Wilson July 3, 2013
You got it, dude.
rgainsburg July 3, 2013
Yes, all in jest. Glad you took it in that spirit!
I wasn’t trying to imply that I am in any way being rude or condescending to anyone. I understand that English is a complicated language and I admit that I don’t fully understand the rules. I’m just saying that I try to do what I hope anyone would do for me, point out (as politely as possible) anything they don’t understand in my writing. I can then either change it, if it needs to be changed, or open up a dialouge about my artistic choices.
Purposeful linguistic creativity and mistakes are indeed different, but it only matters if you are joined in cooperative writing. It is a disservice of such rudeness to disrespect the subject matter and expression of opinion when it is discernible by hijacking the conversation when one shifts to the inane conversation of how someone should have properly expressed themselves. The demonstration of proper grammar in ones own writing is the proper route to employ.
If it seems other writers have a reason for the language choices they make, I let it be and try to understand their reasons. However, if I feel they made an unintentional mistake, I point it out. I agree that language should be allowed to change, but I also believe that any change should not be made out of ignorance.
I think there’s a difference between misusing grammar because you’re trying to be creative, and doing so because you’re misinformed. I’ve occasionally created words or tweaked grammar rules in my own writing in order to achieve a better flow, or make a point. But if I were using something incorrectly without knowing it, I would hope that somebody would point it out. I approach others’ writing in the same way.
I find myself thinking that they are allowed to not be passionate about language. And that correcting them is silly and only serves to upset them. They are, in my honest opinion, allowed to be wrong without being taunted for it.
I do find myself bothered by the misuse of grammar, though not because of clarity or any desire to appear more intelligent. It’s more an upset that things are out of place, like the toilet seat left up or the refrigerator door swinging open. I’ve been taught certain rules, so I intend to follow them to the letter. I used to believe it was my sole duty to eradicate poor grammar usage.
But then I realized that ain’t never gonna happen.
I agree with him in that context, convention and circumstance is all. In Finland I teach my students to do well in the matriculation exam they will be doing, which does not only measure language skills but also logic and knowledge about the world. During the first course not so much, but by the seventh course we will focus on just that. Nowadays they will also learn to speak English, so that is a focus as well.
Yes, it is a deviation from a spelling norm (which, as you may know, Shakespeare did all the time), and not a deviation from grammar norms. However, you did not make this distinction 🙂 in your original comment.
Fry seems to me to be implying that by focusing excessively on the structure of language, the creativity it is capable of expressing becomes endangered. A greater good can become sacrificed for the sake of a lesser good.
oops, did it again, shear is sheer :).
But the fact I can decypher leetspeak, even at an almost natural level, does not make it easier to understand. A well written sentence immediately conveys the emotional message the writer intended it to have, as this removes the gap between writer and reader. When the writer is careless, writes things in ambigious ways or simply uses words and grammar incorrect ly it is shear luck when the reader gets it the first time, it is not quality. I stress again, writing ‘simply’ does not improve reading
Indeed I did mean ‘distinction’. But that is a spelling error, not a grammar error ;). Having both Dutch and English as native languages I have studied how I form language, and for instance how some sentences are poorly expressed in Dutch, but easily in English or vice versa. It is fascinating how our emotions trickle down into words, and the problems that can arise. But the thing is, that is only half the process. Language is inherrently intended to be understood, easily. I can read ‘leetspeak’
It is when you appreciate the structure that exists that you can enjoy throwing it around, playing with the rules, and watching the effect it has on you as a reader. You can say the same thing in a hundred different ways and convey a different message each and every time. It is much like music, the notes do not make the music, it is the order in which they are put. Then again, most of today’s people seem to enjoy uninspired music, so I suppose I should not be surprised the same goes for language
At the very least your time estimate is poor. As English is my second language, I wasn’t taught any proper grammar until much later, and, mind you, I didn’t care at all for it. I did however study Latin and ancient Greek which were no doubt my greatest influence. Reading Tolkien’s LOTR cemented my love for structure and playing with structure. I will never forget the first time I read “as often as not”, such an odd and beautiful construction.
I like this entry in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Don’t Panic, everyone. 🙂
he’s right we do smarten up our language at times. i normally do it when when someone is being degrading or tryin to act intellectually superior to me. once i do this it becomes a game of how much can i anger and confuse them
Your not fooling anyone, Fry. We’ll find you’re Achilles heal. In five minute’s or fuehrer.
Exactly write. People make up the grammar as we go along (and we still do). The grammarians come along afterward and try to figure out what (if any) rules we’re following. Then come the grammar nazis who seem to operate under the impression that someone, somewhere wrote a specification for the English language and only they are following it. It reveals an enormous ignorance of the language.
Your “beauty of the language” is, in fact, a passionate affection for whatever you learned of grammar in grade 6. The “beauty of the language” advocates just insist that, for some reason, the language reached perfection when they were children and should be frozen at that state: any change is evil. On that basis, we’d all still be talking like William Shakespeare did when he was growing up…but no one suggests we do that.
An apostrophe’d be an excellent start.
You’re looking for an apostrophe.
It’s people ARE “nothing but snobs.”
That video was one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
You clearly place a lot of importance on your experience, I suspect it to be less than comprehensive and so whilst not entirely irrelevant you may require further study before drawing such definite conclusions.
You got it, dude.
Yes, all in jest. Glad you took it in that spirit!