c4countdown

Since my little debate with Marc has gone considerably off-topic I thought I'd create a new topic for it.

Marc Meakin wrote:Liam,
You might have to elaborate on where I went wrong with my grammar as I only got a grade 'C' O level but otherwisw fair point.
I must admit to getting lazy with my punctuation when using my rather tiny phone to log on to this website
(as is my inability to edit the quote facility) but surely if you understand what I am saying, then I cant see the problem.
Are you this intolerent of regional accents and speech impediments?

No, I'm not intolerant of them. I'm usually unable to understand them without needing an interpreter because I have a hearing impairment (I'm literally half-deaf). Even normal conversation among friends or family is difficult for me, as often by the time I figure out what's been said and have something to contribute, the conversation has moved on to a different topic. Maybe I prefer to read clear, properly-constructed sentences because that's the only kind I can hear without asking for it to be repeated.
To me, writing without punctuation is the non-verbal equivalent of a monotonous mumble. Textspeak is like a foreign accent. I know it might sound illogical, but finding a forum like this is like finding a pub with no background noise and no loud chatter. It only takes one to kill the atmosphere, like a kid constantly whining or some loud drunken idiot across the room.
Maybe I'm being too harsh about this, but it does get on my nerves. Does anybody else find it annoying, or am I making a mountain out of a molehill here?

Usually, I only correct people's spelling or grammar if I'm confident that they'd want to be corrected so that they'll know better for next time. Personally, I don't mind being corrected because I'll (hopefully) learn something to improve my future writing. However, if someone clearly doesn't want to be corrected or doesn't have the capacity or inclination to write in well-formed and punctuated sentences, then I'd agree with Marc that as long as you can understand what has been written, there's no need to "correct" it. The same goes for the spoken word.

Apologies for unacademic ramblings....

I favour written English that I can read with the fewest 'hiccups', and being able to understand correctly, first time, what the writer has written (if that is what the writer wants me to do). On the whole I think that means generally accepting and using 'standard' capitalisation, punctuation and spelling. I remember reading in some book about linguistics (or psycho-linguistics, or something else I don't properly understand), that the brain does a little blip when it trips over odd grammar or an odd word: the flow is interrupted.

My QI-based knowledge of the history of reading (which must therefore be both correct and virtually comprehensive) is that St Ambrose was famed for being able to read silently: Latin, with no capitalisation or punctuation, was always (till then) practised out loud to get the right meaning. I'm still not really sure, if I read as fast as I possibly can, if I actually hear each word, or if I grasp meaning through whole-phrase recognition. If someone tells me that the latter is impossible, I'll believe them (or at least I'll say I do.) But certainly speedy silent reading is hard if you can't pick up the structure of sentences and phrases - these are the instantly recognised and accessed clichés into which specific words are dropped.

I'm not sure what the old "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe" thing proves. Maybe the correct punctuation and capitalisation does help its rapid reading, despite the partly-jumbled words. And what that tells us about spelling is another matter entirely.

End of ramble.

Brian Moore wrote: I'm not sure what the old "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe" thing proves.

Probably not much. (It seems I keep doing this to you, I hope you don't think I'm a dick. Or at least, not more so than I actually am.)

Brian Moore wrote:rscheearch

Rubbish.

[...] in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are

Clumsy.

[...] at the rghit pclae

Clumsy.

[...] wouthit porbelm

Rubbish.

I don't think this schtick was written by researchers at Cambridge or by anyone with credibility on the spelling and grammar front.

Charlie Reams wrote:(It seems I keep doing this to you, I hope you don't think I'm a dick. Or at least, not more so than I actually am.)

You're not a dick if you're just telling me stuff I could have Googled/Sophied for myself, if I had taken the time. But I tend to like to think about the significance of stuff (and ramble about it) before seeing other original or regurgitated opinions about it. And if I do that, I have to be prepared to be told that I'm wrong or stupid. I can cope with that. But thanks for the concern.

Incidentally, I liked that little bit, in the BBC4 'Great Thinkers..." programme, about the semi-debunking of B.F. Skinner's simplistic ideas about language acquisition. That the young girl just couldn't repeat the sentences using "being" and "that" in grammatically unexpected places (for a small child) might be very old news, but seeing it happen on film was a nice reminder of the fascination of the subject.

Nice thread Liam. I wish I had posted it.

Just as an observation, since "Punctuation" isn't a sentence, not having a verb an' all, you don't need a full stop at the end of it.

Off to troll somewhere else

What annoys me more is when people use annoying abbreviations/acronyms. I've seen people put HTH quite a lot on here ("Hope this helps" apparently) among other things, and while it's possible to Google all of these things or work it out, it's a waste of time. The poster might be saving their own time, but they're wasting everyone else's!

Gavin Chipper wrote:What annoys me more is when people use annoying abbreviations/acronyms. I've seen people put HTH quite a lot on here ("Hope this helps" apparently) among other things, and while it's possible to Google all of these things or work it out, it's a waste of time. The poster might be saving their own time, but they're wasting everyone else's!

HTH can also mean 'happy to help'.

(HTH)

Waw your internet connection must be slow Gavin. Btw that first word wasnt a typo tho im not sure if you can google it.

Gavin Chipper wrote:I've seen

I think you mean "I have seen".

Gavin Chipper wrote:What annoys me more is when people use annoying abbreviations/acronyms. I've seen people put HTH quite a lot on here ("Hope this helps" apparently) among other things, and while it's possible to Google all of these things or work it out, it's a waste of time. The poster might be saving their own time, but they're wasting everyone else's!

Gee, sorry, didn't realise it bothered you. I tend to use that one a bit, so I'll watch out for it in future.

Good point well made.

H. T. H.

Lesley Hines wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:What annoys me more is when people use annoying abbreviations/acronyms. I've seen people put HTH quite a lot on here ("Hope this helps" apparently) among other things, and while it's possible to Google all of these things or work it out, it's a waste of time. The poster might be saving their own time, but they're wasting everyone else's!

Gee, sorry, didn't realise it bothered you. I tend to use that one a bit, so I'll watch out for it in future.

Good point well made.

H. T. H.

It's not abbreviations per se, but that some are specific to internet geeks that a lot of people probably don't know. And I think it's probably one of those things that we've often talked about where if you know something, you tend to assume that most others do as well.

HTH

Gavin Chipper wrote: It's not abbreviations per se, but that some are specific to internet geeks that a lot of people probably don't know. And I think it's probably one of those things that we've often talked about where if you know something, you tend to assume that most others do as well.

HTH

I can't speak for everyone but I'm generally being ironic or humorous when I use internetisms like HTH or ITYM.

Charlie Reams wrote:ITYM

Had to google this one. Apparently it stands for "International Tournament of Young Mathematicians".

Charlie Reams wrote:

Brian Moore wrote: I'm not sure what the old "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe" thing proves.

Probably not much. (It seems I keep doing this to you, I hope you don't think I'm a dick. Or at least, not more so than I actually am.)

Well it proves something (in that most people are able to read and understand it), and Brian certainly didn't claim anything other than that (in fact he didn't even claim that, he merely pondered on whether it did prove anything). He didn't attribute it to a University study or anything.

So yeah, you are a dick.

IAWP!!

Jon Corby wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Brian Moore wrote: I'm not sure what the old "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe" thing proves.

Probably not much. (It seems I keep doing this to you, I hope you don't think I'm a dick. Or at least, not more so than I actually am.)

Well it proves something (in that most people are able to read and understand it), and Brian certainly didn't claim anything other than that (in fact he didn't even claim that, he merely pondered on whether it did prove anything). He didn't attribute it to a University study or anything.

So yeah, you are a dick.

tl;dr


yesssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!