June 23, 2004

• But then who will buy my cabbage's and pea's? Also, woo! I got 100%! And nitpicking the grammar in a book that nitpicks grammar should be more entertaining than this, although the idea is amusing.
• Thought it woz a book about pandas. Why isn't it?
• Right on. Another pet peeve... when people have no idea WTF quotation marks are for. For example, a sign in a convenience store that might say something like: Sorry, the "bathroom" is "for" paying "customer's only." What does that even mean?!
• Um, "the bathroom is for paying customers only"?
• Um, "the bathroom is for paying customers only"? Yes, rub it in, you insensitive clod!
• "the bathroom is for paying customers only" Means all ye can do in this bathroom is pay the customers. Likely not a pleasant establishment.
• I never have been able to make it through a whole New Yorker article, even when it is broken up as it usually is by cute cartoons and bad poems.
• Something that bugged the shit out of me reading this book, though: the author's persistent use of "the internet", which is wholly incorrect. "An internet" is a collection of networks. "The Internet" is a noun for, well, the Internet.
• "An Englishwoman lecturing Americans on semicolons is a little like an American lecturing the French on sauces." Maybe, but actually, I rather like the "sauce lecture" idea.
• Self-linking alert. I treated the first chapter of Eats, Shoots and Leaves back in December last year. I treated Menand's critique yesterday. Conclusion: Truss is useles and Menand needs to brush up on his grammar.
• I couldn't make it through the New Yorker article. At a certain point, I stopped reading it for content and started looking for grammar mistakes. I am not an expert on grammar. I wish I was, since I hate reviewing a sentence I just wrote and wonder if it is grammatically correct. [example: should there be a comma after "was" in the last sentence?] I did learn that placing punctuation outside of a quote was taboo in the US. I love doing taboo things! I always thought the rule was one places the punctuation mark inside of the quote if it was part of the thing being quoted: * There is disagreement whether it is correct to use "an internet" or "the Internet". * rogerd said, "'An internet' is a collection of networks. 'The Internet' is a now for, well, the Internet.'"
• Its my language, and I can do what the fuck I like with it.
• My main problem with punctuation - and, indeed, many more obscure points of spelling (s vs z in some words) - is that I grew up with the English oriented New Zealand standards, but I am regularly exposed to US standards via the Internet. Although I'm fairly sure the their/they're/there and lose/loose distinctions are better preserved in the US proper than by the hordes of illiterates with 'net access. As for the problems it causes in a household when one prefers Oxford commas and one's wife dislikes them...
• I'm with dng on this one.
• Lets see, there is proper English, American English, Internet English...punctuation nitpicking online is a little over the top IMHO. I just read whats written, gleaning what message the writer intends, ignoring the grammer of what was written. Seems a little anal to freak out about poor grammer in online posts, IMO. I think that anything that is written for publication or for professional reasons, should make use of proper grammer and punctuation. On the other hand, proper grammer and proper punctuation should be encouraged (taught) in our schools. I am not convinced it is even taught at the schools my children attended. My children were taught *whole language concept*. I am still not sure what that was supposed to mean. When my youngest child was in the third grade, I noticed he couldn't read the simplest things and never spelled any words bigger than three letters long, correct. When I asked my youngest child's teacher if she was teaching spelling to the children, her answer was, " Oh, we don't worry about spelling. We teach the *whole language concept*. We want the kids to learn to be creative, they will learn proper spelling and grammer in later classes. When they reach the fifth grade is when we start teaching spelling and grammer." Needless to say I was shocked. It turned out I had to hire a tutor to teach my child how to read and write. By the time my youngest was in the 6th grade, he was only reading and writing at a thrid grade level. He was so frustrated by not being able to read and write he almost threw in the towel and refused to try. It was a battle that I blame on the school system. I apologize to any who may be offended by my grammer and punctuation of this post. I am not sure I am using either proper grammer or punctuation without reviewing the rules of it all. ...and what dng and PF said, when related to online post.
• I find dng/PF/bratcat's position on grammar and punctuation on-line very interesting, and am genuinely interested in the why. For me conventions of grammar and punctuation become even more important on-line than in print: the interactions (email, bulletin boards such as this, etc.) are personal interactions, akin to cocktail party conversation. Absent the ability to read body language and tone, I can only rely on the bare text to tell me if someone is being sarcastic or indifferent, rude and demeaning or entirely kidding. Language, as Menard pettily admitted, is for communication and for all that I don
• The thing is, those of us who know that we don't alway have proper Englishes never attempt to write a book claiming that we do. That's the real story here. It's the hubris - or maybe the chutzpah. (I'm better on the definition of the latter). I spell long words badly and I make up words randomly (I was just minutes ago informed that "squozen" is not, in fact, the equivalent to "squeeze" that "spoken" is to "speak"), but even I know that semi-colons happen when you want to connect two clauses that could be complete sentances in and of themselves, just very short ones. Not that it helps with my habit of run on sentances. As for the Intarweb, I think trying is the best thing. We should try to write in clear English, avoid over acronyming or lazy forms (the second person pronoun MUST be spelled out, or digital blood will flow), but not worry overly about checking our work. I also wonder whether the writing on the internet has not fallen into a much more spoken form of English - I know that my love of dashes never appears in my essays (which are, according to my fiance, deadly dull and overly academic, and filled with clause-packed sentances that would be better used to kill vampires) - but I run-on online just like I would in conversation. On preview: ilyadeux is right that status can be revealed through online punctuation, etc. But I find that I tend to pick as much or more up by tone and vocabulary, usually whether someone is much older or younger, sometimes when they are British (Britain has more noticeable slang than the Antipodes).
• [Punctuation's] role is semantic: to add precision and complexity to meaning. It increases the information potential of strings of words. What most punctuation does not do is add color, texture, or flavor to the writing. Dumbest. Statement. Ever. I'm with ilyadeux, jb, dng et al, however. Menard may be a nitpicky so-and-so, but he is at least less of a crushingly painful snob than Truss. I got given ES&L last Christmas; the lady cannot write. As Menard correctly points out, she is merely venting, and it's painfully apparent that her starting point is a reactionary, class-based one. People like her own the language; shopkeepers, Americans and internet users are merely borrowing it, and if they break it they're going to have to bloody well pay for it. It is an interesting point that grammar on the internet may be of greater importance than elsewhere. As has been pointed out, punctuation and grammar does not add information, they reduce the amount of false meaning that might be attached to a word string. On tha intrasuperhighweb, where people who don't know each other very well communicate sans tone of voice, body language, and many shared references and assumptions, the idea of reducing the potential for misinterpretation is a damn good one. but yknow i can t0t4lly understand j00 even if u rite like a twunt, so truss can totally stfu and st1ck h3r grammer up her *bleep*.
• Transblawg on that fucking book.
• Languagelog sides with Menand.
• *paging languagehat, please report to this thread, thank you.* my pet peeve is when folks put an apostrophe pointing the wrong way before a year: '94. well, it's just straight up-and-down in computerland, but on billboards, etc., the apostrophe should point AWAY from the number, not TOWARD it. i know, picky, picky.
• Follow up at LangaugeLog.
• �Correct� grammar and punctuation on-line is a way of checking for socio-economic cues that are otherwise hidden; Personally, I find the fact that class and status are hidden on the internet to be one of the internet's positive qualities. If the information is valuable, it shouldn't matter whether the poster is a professor at Harvard or a high school drop-out who pumps gas at the Quick-E Mart.
• Haven't read the book, but reviews and the reactions of others whose opinions I respect leave me with no interest in doing so. Not to mention this sentence from the excerpt at the book site: If this satanic sprinkling of redundant apostrophes causes no little gasp of horror or quickening of the pulse, you should probably put down this book at once. The phrase I have bolded is one of the worst uses of English I've seen in a while (in published work, that is). Unbeknownst (apparently) to Ms Truss, the phrase "no little" is a common example of litotes; people write "there was no little consternation" when they mean "there was a great deal of consternation." I first read Truss's sentence, therefore, as meaning people who felt a great deal of horror at mispunctuation should put the book down. I was not unperplexed. Then I reread it and realized "Oh, she's not very literate -- she means 'doesn't cause a little gasp of horror.'" And I lost what mild interest may have remained. As a copy editor, I'm glad punctuation rules exist, because I get paid for enforcing them; people who think they imply anything about intelligence or other Higher Qualities amuse and bemuse me.
• *washes out mouth w/ soap*
• Krebs cycle, I agree. Class distinction, to me , usually has the smell of discrimination surrounding it.
• I just wanted to be clear about what I had said up there somewhere about class / status groups: I don't think that people necessarily look for such things, but that cues are embedded more deeply that people can consciously avoid, and seeking out ways of ordering is something all (I think) people do unconsciously. The way a person uses punctuation, spelling, grammar, vocabulary, etc. - not "correctly" but whatever patterns they have - can reveal something about them. As an anthropologist, I find the methods people use to create distinctions fascinating, and I think that language is one of the prime tools, particularly in on-line communities where there is little else to go on. I'm not trying to discriminate, but to understand the markers of any distinctions that do crop up -- and frequently those markers have little to do with money, intelligence, Higher Qualities, or class discrimination. Books like E,S&L play on the status cues about what it means to be able to use punctuation "correctly". languagehat: I don't think I understand. Should the phrase "no little" never be used except in the litotes-fashion or is it just a potentially confusing construction to be avoided?
• ilyadeux, the clarification is appreciated:), although in my experience, most people who start speaking about class have usually been a little snobbish. The fact that you are not trying to discriminate, but to understand the markers of any distinctions that crop up, is a good thing and warms this monkeys heart. I have a question though, if you say" -- and frequently those markers have little to do with money, intelligence, Higher Qualities, or class discrimination." in one post and say "�Correct� grammar and punctuation on-line is a way of checking for socio-economic cues that are otherwise hidden;..." in another post, isn't that contradictory?
• ilyadeux: You can use the phrase however you want; if you use it in a way that causes confusion to those who know the traditional expression, however, you reveal your own ignorance. Which is fine in a civilian, but not in someone who presumes to write books telling people how to use English.
• I'm not trying to discriminate, but to understand the markers of any distinctions that do crop up ilyadeux, your comment is very thought provoking, and I can see how, as an anthropologist, your interest would be piqued by the topic. I wonder how fine the line is between noting markers of status and making value judgements based on those markers. I think it takes effort once a set of markers is noticed to ignore those markers and concentrate on their bearer as an individual. One of the things I like about the internet is that most traditional markers are erased (or at least minimized). Because of this, we are freed up to communicate with people we otherwise might not about topics we otherwise might not discuss. Also, it is easier to classify people based on markers that are personally relevent when those that we've been taught to look for and then pretend to ignore are missing. For example, some of the categories I've placed Monkeyfilter people in based on their posts: Quonset: funny, somewhat bitter, people I agree with on political issues. f8xmulder: republicans who are fun to argue with. Nostrildamus: quirky people with Asperger's. languagehat: people who know great poetry. beeswacky: Buddhists. I believe I can honestly say I've never noticed anyone's grammar, spelling, or punctuation (on the internet) enough to put them in a mental grouping based on those qualities. Content is a totally different matter.
• I love Louis Menand's criticism in the New Yorker but in terms of sheer bravado, this essay comes in a pale second to the one he wrote about the new edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. I'm always a little concerned, though, when I find myself having such a good time reading reviews of books about grammar and usage. I'm not a grammarian -- certainly not in practice -- but I find this stuff to be completely captivating.
• ...I've never noticed anyone's grammar, spelling, or punctuation (on the internet) enough to put them in a mental grouping based on those qualities. I think on MoFi we see people of a reasonably small socio-economic niche, possibly with similar levels of education. For that reason, it's harder to pigeonhole based on grammar and spelling. I've recently been playing, as a timewaster, a really bad MMORPG mostly frequented, it seems, by teenage boys. It comes as a shock when someone comments in the forum using correct spelling (as opposed to "teh 1337" and text-message style abbreviations), and my automatic assumption is that they're several years older and more literate than the majority. Then again there are those who claim to be in university that still can't seem to make the effort to type "you". In a lot of instances on the internet, I think it comes down to "spelling by association", where people, especially teens, tend to dumb down to fit in with the style of the majority. I've noticed that these same people, when replying to me, will actually spell words properly, even if their grammar leaves something to be desired.
• Gotta jump rat'on in hea' ya'll. I agree tracicle--we are a select socio-economic group--I have to believe it's either that, or we are all on our best behavior. (hmmm, well-behaved Monkeys--who woulda thunk it?) Actually, what has astounded me most is how I failed to pick up on the age variation. A few Monkeys, mere babes, I placed as mature and wise, but most I figured were waaaay younger and hipper than they reported. IMHO, from the get-go we're programmed to notice socio-economic clues. My 3yo granddaughter is MUCH politer and more aware of her language around older folks than around kids of 10-14. She's not always certain on how to react with people ages 15-30ish. Her response is often delayed a bit till she knows how formal/informal the situation is. I'm sure she's not aware of the economic end, but her blossoming social awareness leads her to use language appropriate to the context. We all tailor our language--whether it is a job interview, a meet-up at the local bar, or an evening with the in-laws--we're going to speak appropriately for the social situation. Our using "inappropriate" language is significant in these occasions too, and can covey things like humor, an effort to be casual, contempt, or many other things. Mefis are horrible at grammer and speling callouts. Thank Dog Monkeys are more into content not form! I may notice (or not) that someone else's post has errors, and it seldom bothers me, but mine own errer's doth maketh me KRAZY. Ya'll unnerstan' wat I be tryin' to signify hea?
• As far as "the quotes" go, "everyone" knows the sign "should" read: "Sorry", the bathroom "is" for paying customer"s only.
• Chick and Ruth's Deli in Annapolis advertises its sandwiches thusly: Chick and Ruth's FAMOUS "delicious" sandwiches.
• My 3yo granddaughter is MUCH politer and more aware of her language around older folks than around kids of 10-14. She's not always certain on how to react with people ages 15-30ish. Her response is often delayed a bit till she knows how formal/informal the situation is. Heh. I was once asked what grade I was in by a 6- or 7-year-old. She and her mom had come into a shop where I worked, so I tailored part of the conversation for her. You could see her mental gears working and coming up confused.
• I don't think we should assume that monkeys are from a similar socioeconomic status, but we could guess that literacy is similar. Literacy often goes with S-E but not always. (My fiance, who is also on Monkeyfilter, and I, for instance, come from very different S-E statuses, but have the same level of literacy and education. Except that I am clearly smarterer (sic). I understand ilyadeux's interest, particularly as an anthropologist, but I was wondering at bratcat's association of class conciousness with being snobby. Maybe I have a very warped environment (generally universities), but class conciousness most often seems to go with reverse snobbery, working-class pride, a touch of Marxism, etc. (all of which I will admit to, as well as a professional interest in social status and class). Snobby people seem to have two modes: the new upper class like to pretend that they, along with everyone else in the entire country, are middle class, while the old fashioned aristo types (by far the less annoying) try not to notice us peons. If by any chance you happen to fall into their ken (as a guest for example), they will simply pretend that you too are one of them. But that said, I have always found age to be the clearest status in writing. It's also possibly one of the most important status divisions for any society, along with gender, and yet North American scholars always seem to ignore it in favour of race or class. Yet age and gender are the only two divisions that must exist in every society that is or ever was.
• Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, jb, about being snobbish. Its been my experience, that most people that I have been around, that are speaking about social status or economical status are being snobbish. I don't judge people by their social status or their economical status. I judge people by actions. In my experience, those people who look for status symbols and all are being snobbish. ( not that monkeys would be snobbish:) tracicle, I agree with this statement. *In a lot of instances on the internet, I think it comes down to "spelling by association", where people, especially teens, tend to dumb down to fit in with the style of the majority.*
• bratcat: I'm glad I was clearer the second time around. I know that lighting on class and particularly economics is dangerous without precision, which I didn't have enough of. As to your question though, I don't think I was(or at least I did not intend to be) contradictory. I agree that on-line, content is king in that we aren't distracted by questions of whether that Louis Vitton bag is from Canal Street or Carnaby, for example. That is a cue directly about money and status. On-line, I will be judged by what music I say I listen to, what artists I refer to, what cult in-jokes I know and pass on. Obviously, these kinds of cues about taste and distinction can be transmitted in "real life" too, but on-line, that may be all I have and they are only indirectly about socio-economic status. Thus, we can learn something about people based on cues from content and usage by paying more attention to non-monetary things, like text message-speak, for example. There is nothing "correct" or "incorrect" about that from an anthropological perspective -- there is no Absolute Truth in Grammar -- but I will be able to glean something of you, your pursuits, and perhaps age/gender/education from it. What I then do with that information is separate. I may decide you're a young whippersnapper not fit to speak the Queen's English, but for the most part I don't care unless I actually cannot understand you. Also: everyone wants to blend in (or, be unique because being unique is what you're supposed to do), and will adapt to the extant culture. Around here, that means trying to spell correctly, not using hacker-speak, and no direct FP porn links. Many English people will tell you they do the same -- one accent for home, one accent for the city so they don't look like country come to town. This adaptability makes language and syntax use that much more complex and revealing because it highlights that pure content isn't everything, not nearly. another really long post sorry. I did try to edit it though, but
• Ok, got it. No one is being a snob. I misunderstood your messages intent. Hands ilyadeux a banana split.
• I recall my English tutor telling me that tailoring one's accent, speech patterns and choice of words to a situation was called "code-switching". Sorry, too tired to check out any sites about it. Apparently alot of it is done fairly automatically, but we are mostly aware that we talk a certain way to certain people, in certain circumstances. Just a thought: Perhaps one type of snobbery is the unwillingness on the part of the 'snob' to change how they speak when in different company, wishing to assert the difference in order to prove superiority? I know that when I encounter particularly nitpicky or nasty users at the Information Desk, my speech gradually becomes more clipped, precise and starts flying West towards England. I can sound like quite a prig.
• Monkeyfilter: I can sound like quite a prig.
• Where the bloody blazes is the dang hyphen betwixt
• Alnedra, I have a friend who spent many of her childhood and recent adult years in England, and so she has a sort of low-level English accent going on. When I talk to her I notice that I start to mimic her and use similar words or expressions to her. I also know of people who can emulate a Scots accent, or an American one, but when I was required to fake a North American accent I never felt anything but embarrassed to hear such an awful accent coming out of my mouth. (It's those damn phone bots that require voice-answers to automated questions, or the server staff that didn't understand when I wanted my muffin warmed.)
• Tracicle: Remember, body language can be just as important as the spoken word. When you're wanting to get your muffin warmed, don't forget to waggle your eyebrows and loll out your tongue. That always gets the point across.
• When you're wanting to get your muffin warmed *hides under desk*
• Considering how cold it is here tonight, I'd love to get my muffin warmed.
• Wolof doesn't want his muffin warmed? *pouts*
• *boils hottle*
• I didn't think that Wolof had an, um, muffin to be, um, warmed.
• I thought Wolof was going under the desk the better to warm tracicle's muffin without the co-workers noticing.
• where's Wolof?
• Well, if Wolof can't have a warm muffin, we can at least give him a couple hot buns.
• Truss v. Menand update: Menand is a "tosser", according to the wanker who edited E, S & L.