Comments on: The Sad State of Literacy http://toosigma.com/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/ far from normal Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:50:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Philip http://toosigma.com/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/comment-page-1/#comment-251 Philip Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:32:43 +0000 http://toosigma.com/archive/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/#comment-251 Language is a creature of necessity, as well is its usage, and both shall evolve as the need evolves. What we are seeing is the need for efficiency over proper grammar, complicated by a huge mass of jargon and slang that has entered common use at an incredible rate as various facets of existence have blurred together with our non-working lives. This has caused the necessary adaptation of technically improper usage and, unfortunately, it is those who lament the good-ol' days of extensive drafts and proofreading, and other such time consuming tasks that suffer. Far be it for me, the grammatic cripple, to be the one to throw a stone at those who choose the expedient road as I also appreciate efficient and contextually clear communication as well as "proper" usage when it is called for. I would not, however, sacrifice quick and clear communication for something more pleasant to hear or see but marginally less effective. That said, would I like to see proper usage carry into the modern era? Certainly. Do I expect to see it? No. The problem is that an increasingly technical environment requires swift and clear communication, and that need bleeds over into all areas of interaction. I tried to put together an example of a typical exchange that I work with daily, but the "more grammatically proper" example began to take over a page to cover the same thing I did in three lines using our communication protocols. Mayhap I can go over the exchange some time in the future, but breaking it into "normal" conversation mode is just too alien to even attempt at this hour. The point is that the requirements of quick and efficient communication in a given context are not new. In fact, there has always been a need to use abbreviated communication methods clear back to the days of bartering before "money". Back then, one expected to use the terms and usage associated with the context of commerce, but stopped using such things when the exchange of goods was completed. What we are seeing now is a blurring effect where the need for such usage is no longer clear because the technologies that have prompted and promoted it are no longer compartmentalized away from our daily lives as they have been in years past. The language and its use have evolved only because the context of its use has evolved. I could also blame part of it on our pitiful public education system and what it has become in recent years, but I'll have to save that for another time. Language is a creature of necessity, as well is its usage, and both shall evolve as the need evolves. What we are seeing is the need for efficiency over proper grammar, complicated by a huge mass of jargon and slang that has entered common use at an incredible rate as various facets of existence have blurred together with our non-working lives. This has caused the necessary adaptation of technically improper usage and, unfortunately, it is those who lament the good-ol’ days of extensive drafts and proofreading, and other such time consuming tasks that suffer. Far be it for me, the grammatic cripple, to be the one to throw a stone at those who choose the expedient road as I also appreciate efficient and contextually clear communication as well as “proper” usage when it is called for. I would not, however, sacrifice quick and clear communication for something more pleasant to hear or see but marginally less effective.

That said, would I like to see proper usage carry into the modern era? Certainly. Do I expect to see it? No. The problem is that an increasingly technical environment requires swift and clear communication, and that need bleeds over into all areas of interaction. I tried to put together an example of a typical exchange that I work with daily, but the “more grammatically proper” example began to take over a page to cover the same thing I did in three lines using our communication protocols. Mayhap I can go over the exchange some time in the future, but breaking it into “normal” conversation mode is just too alien to even attempt at this hour.

The point is that the requirements of quick and efficient communication in a given context are not new. In fact, there has always been a need to use abbreviated communication methods clear back to the days of bartering before “money”. Back then, one expected to use the terms and usage associated with the context of commerce, but stopped using such things when the exchange of goods was completed. What we are seeing now is a blurring effect where the need for such usage is no longer clear because the technologies that have prompted and promoted it are no longer compartmentalized away from our daily lives as they have been in years past. The language and its use have evolved only because the context of its use has evolved.

I could also blame part of it on our pitiful public education system and what it has become in recent years, but I’ll have to save that for another time.

]]> By: BJ http://toosigma.com/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/comment-page-1/#comment-250 BJ Fri, 24 Mar 2006 16:25:58 +0000 http://toosigma.com/archive/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/#comment-250 So would you agree that all evolution of language is a deterioration? Or is it possible for language to evolve in a positive direction? As for the negative impact of the Internet, I believe that the ability for anyone to post their ideas and opinions is generally a good thing, because it gives a voice to those who may not have one, and having access to different opinions (even grammatically incorrect ones) is a good thing. While it may be preferable to only have polished and perfected opinions to sift through, I doubt there are sufficient editors in the world. Forbidding someone from expressing an opinion simply because they haven't the necessary grammatical skills seems rather arbitrary and unfair. In the best of all possible worlds, everyone would learn correct grammar in grade school and utilize it in every aspect of communication. Unfortunately, the dictates of economics and extreme political-correctness will probably prevent (or at least hinder) proper education, and expediency, efficiency or outright laziness will prevent proper utilization. So would you agree that all evolution of language is a deterioration? Or is it possible for language to evolve in a positive direction?

As for the negative impact of the Internet, I believe that the ability for anyone to post their ideas and opinions is generally a good thing, because it gives a voice to those who may not have one, and having access to different opinions (even grammatically incorrect ones) is a good thing. While it may be preferable to only have polished and perfected opinions to sift through, I doubt there are sufficient editors in the world. Forbidding someone from expressing an opinion simply because they haven’t the necessary grammatical skills seems rather arbitrary and unfair.

In the best of all possible worlds, everyone would learn correct grammar in grade school and utilize it in every aspect of communication. Unfortunately, the dictates of economics and extreme political-correctness will probably prevent (or at least hinder) proper education, and expediency, efficiency or outright laziness will prevent proper utilization.

]]> By: Brittany http://toosigma.com/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/comment-page-1/#comment-247 Brittany Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:25:50 +0000 http://toosigma.com/archive/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/#comment-247 As a person who chose linguistics as a career, I would agree that the evolution/deterioration of language is inevitable (in spite of the mumblings of the Academie Francaise). The internet has only sped up the process by giving every idiot an outlet to publish their views (without the (much-missed) "censorship" of editors) Working in a college (!) environment, English professors no longer bemoan the splitting of infinitives but rather the misuse of your/you're and their/they're/there. The new (and irritating) grammatical mistake is the confusion between then/than and our/are (!!) For a nerdy, wordy site, visit: http://www.alphadictionary.com/index.shtml (take the Yankee test for a good laugh). As a person who chose linguistics as a career, I would agree that the evolution/deterioration of language is inevitable (in spite of the mumblings of the Academie Francaise). The internet has only sped up the process by giving every idiot an outlet to publish their views (without the (much-missed) “censorship” of editors)
Working in a college (!) environment, English professors no longer bemoan the splitting of infinitives but rather the misuse of your/you’re and their/they’re/there. The new (and irritating) grammatical mistake is the confusion between then/than and our/are (!!)

For a nerdy, wordy site, visit: http://www.alphadictionary.com/index.shtml (take the Yankee test for a good laugh).

]]> By: Philip http://toosigma.com/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/comment-page-1/#comment-246 Philip Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:05:35 +0000 http://toosigma.com/archive/archive/2006-02-20/the-sad-state-of-literacy/#comment-246 I agree that the importance is to know what adaptation of the language to use under a given circumstance. I recall reading an article mayhap two years ago which described how a middle-schooler turned in a paper written entirely in "chat speak". I would have laughed were the case not so sad. I agree that the importance is to know what adaptation of the language to use under a given circumstance. I recall reading an article mayhap two years ago which described how a middle-schooler turned in a paper written entirely in “chat speak”. I would have laughed were the case not so sad.

]]>