Monitoring Gillianren's blood pressure

[ToSeek]

(and mine, sometimes).

http://graphjam.com/2008/06/04/song-chart-memes-angry-for-bad-grammar/

[NEOWatcher]

Is this graf of you're's cumulative in it's effect's?

[Matherly]

Is this graf of you're's cumulative in it's effect's?

(insert sound of Gillianren'& ToSeek's heads a'splode)

[Moose]

That echo you heard wasn't an echo. It was mine getting all explody, too.

[mike alexander]

I pretty much agree. Its the principal of the thing.

[weatherc]

Don't loose your heads over it.

[ToSeek]

Is this graf of you're's cumulative in it's effect's?

And I thought I could stop taking the Norvasc....

[DyerWolf]

Weather you think its exceptible to poke fun at Jillian, I'm not sure this is the write cite to do so. I would council you to illicit the thoughts of other forum members and precede with caution. You might fined yourself in eminent risk of banning for ad homs.

They're alot of reasons to be conscience of her feelings on this issue, and your comments may seem cruelty itself masked by the allusion of civility. I don't think she ascented to this level of harrassment when she joined. Cant we get passed this? Get over yourself all ready.

Whom do you think you are?

[Maksutov]

That's not rite, it's not even rong.

And, too rong's don't make a riot.

[mike alexander]

...and the lower alps those who alp themselves.

[Van Rijn]

Ow! Ow! This thread is to much for me.

[Christopher Ferro]

About plural nouns with apostrophes... my last name is Ferro. When talking about a bunch of us, we usualy write "Ferro's" as a contraction, because Ferros looks and sounds like a different name/word and Ferroes just looks wrong. Are we right in doing it that way, do you think?

CJSF

[Maksutov]

How about "Members of the Ferro family"?

[Swift]

About plural nouns with apostrophes... my last name is Ferro. When talking about a bunch of us, we usualy write "Ferro's" as a contraction, because Ferros looks and sounds like a different name/word and Ferroes just looks wrong. Are we right in doing it that way, do you think?

I suspect that you are technically wrong and the grammar police will come and put all the Ferro's to death. But I agree with your thinking about this and I would probably do the same.

Some of the grimmar rules make no sense to me and I choose to go against them. One of the ones like that is quotation marks and punctuations marks. For example, you are supposed to do this:

Swift said, "Are you going to eat the chicken"?

with the question mark outside of the quote. But that doesn't make sense to me, I am quoting a question, so I will type:

Swift said, "Are you going to eat the chicken?"

I hope my death is swift (so to speak) and grammatical.

[Van Rijn]

Some of the grimmar rules make no sense to me and I choose to go against them. One of the ones like that is quotation marks and punctuations marks. For example, you are supposed to do this:

Swift said, "Are you going to eat the chicken"?

with the question mark outside of the quote. But that doesn't make sense to me, I am quoting a question, so I will type:

Swift said, "Are you going to eat the chicken?"

I hope my death is swift (so to speak) and grammatical.

If you are quoting a question, the question mark should be within the quotation marks (as per your second example). If you are asking a question about a quotation, it should be outside.

[mike alexander]

It burns me to my very marrow
Pluralizing names like 'Ferro'.
'Ferros' looks a little silly-
Jolts my sensibilitilly.
But islanders have tricks like these:
Just call yourself the 'Ferroese'.

[Gillianren]

About plural nouns with apostrophes... my last name is Ferro. When talking about a bunch of us, we usualy write "Ferro's" as a contraction, because Ferros looks and sounds like a different name/word and Ferroes just looks wrong. Are we right in doing it that way, do you think?

Sorry, Christopher. No, you're not. The apostrophe is wrong, no matter the reason behind it. "Ferros" is right.

The rest of you . . . you're not funny, and I'm ignoring the lot of you!

[sarongsong]

"Ignorance is futile!" :)

[madeyalook, madeyalook]

[Jens]

If you are quoting a question, the question mark should be within the quotation marks (as per your second example). If you are asking a question about a quotation, it should be outside.

Knot too dispute this, and eye don't have the tyme two look it up, but won thing two consider is that the rules R different in British and American style.

[Gillianren]

Actually, Jens, in this instance, they are the same. The rules are as follows.

In American English, the period is always inside the quotation marks. Ditto the comma. In British English, the rules are the same as for question marks and exclamation points.

In both American and British English, the question mark or exclamation point goes in or out of the quotation mark depending on context. If the quoted sentence is a question or an exclamation, the mark goes inside. If it isn't, it doesn't.

So far as I can tell, semicolons never go inside quotation marks (unless, of course, they're in the middle of a quoted passage!).

[LunarOrbit]

I would have thought "obvious spelling errors" and "use of wrong your/you're" would cause higher blood pressure because they are so obvious, whereas correct usage of apostrophes can actually be more confusing so it is more understandable when people make mistakes. But maybe that's just me.

This is the kind of thing that annoys me: c u l8r. Intentional spelling mistakes like that bother me because it is like they are ashamed of any sign of intelligence and want to appear stupid.

[Paul Leeks]

I managed to raise Gillianrens blood pressure at Clavius,I wonder if she knows I am Altair4??Don't talk to her about Freemasons..she gets agitated!

Gillianren I still like you

Paul Leeks (altair 4,Clavius)

OBTW say hello to the others for me, is Ginnie still smoking I am sure that won't do much for his blood pressure!! and my last comments at Clavius certainly did not do much good for my blood pressure!!

Take care Gillianren

[cjl]

I would have thought "obvious spelling errors" and "use of wrong your/you're" would cause higher blood pressure because they are so obvious, whereas correct usage of apostrophes can actually be more confusing so it is more understandable when people make mistakes. But maybe that's just me.

This is the kind of thing that annoys me: c u l8r. Intentional spelling mistakes like that bother me because it is like they are ashamed of any sign of intelligence and want to appear stupid.

I'm with you on that one - especially with people who I know are more intelligent than that, and seem to like the ridiculous abbreviations and egregious insertion of numbers anyways.

[Kaptain K]

The one that probably bothers me the most is people that can't abbreviate et cetera!

[Donnie B.]

The one that probably bothers me the most is people that can't abbreviate et cetera!
That one gets me, too. I guess it can be justified (tortuously) as a contraction of "et cetera", but I suspect the real reason is that the violator doesn't even know what "etc." is short for.

[ineluki]

This is the kind of thing that annoys me: c u l8r.

That's beyond annoyance, I just ignore those who use that writing style.

Generally, if someone doesn't take the time to write such simple words, I take it as an indication of the time they spent thinking about their post and don't waste my time on it.
There might be a small risk of missing some exception, but I consider that risk to be as big as slipping on a banana peel on the ISS...

[mahesh]

The one that probably bothers me the most is people that can't abbreviate et cetera!my emphasis......

shouldn't it be ..... people who (animate/inanimate)......i see that increasingly frequently all around me and you know...it's sad....fundamental grammar down the drain

and last night a tv programmes link (written) announcing...america's most sexiest hollywood..something or other ...
...i forget

what's happening?

[mike alexander]

There's a place for 'c u l8r', just don't abuse it. Text-messaging on ittle-bitty handheld devices while driving down the freeway puts a premium on keystrokes. Reminds me of CW in radio, where lots of shorthand evolved: CQ, DX, the whole set of 'Q' triads (QRM, QST and so on).

73, y'all.

[geonuc]

my emphasis......

shouldn't it be ..... people who (animate/inanimate)......i see that increasingly frequently all around me and you know...it's sad....fundamental grammar down the drain

and last night a tv programmes link (written) announcing...america's most sexiest hollywood..something or other ...
...i forget

what's happening?
I can only assume this is tongue-in-cheek?

[Gillianren]

Frankly, the reason that apostrophes for pluralization bothers more is that there's no reason to believe it's right. Who among you was ever taught that "computer's," just for an example, was equivalent to/more correct than "computers"? Why would that even be true?

Also . . . guys, the apostrophe actually is quite simple to use properly. I'll acknowledge that the comma is not, though those rules can be learned quite easily. However, the apostrophe is used pretty much exclusively for contractions and possessives. It is never used for possessive pronouns, which is why "it's" does not mean "belonging to it." After all, would you write "our's" or "her's"? (Some of you shouldn't answer that, I guess.)

The thing that causes me the greatest aggravation, the highest gain in blood pressure, is the attitude that it doesn't matter. It does. Oh, yes, the rules do change now and again. However, a lot of the basics have been the same since Shakespeare and before. Provided you know the meanings of all the words, you can still read what he has to say perfectly clearly. Chaucer is harder, of course, but Chaucer is still Middle English.

Okay, you're probably not going to be Shakespeare. But look at the clear language of Samuel Pepys, of Thomas Jefferson, of Abraham Lincoln, of Franklin Roosevelt. You can understand all of them, and they put effort into it. Heck, Pepys didn't write to be read, but he still wrote clear, coherent sentences! It behooves you to learn what the rules are now, so you can know why and when and how to break them.

[Fazor]

I agree, its really easy to know, where, apostrophies' go.



:whistle:

(Okay in all honesty, I really do agree that it's a fairly striaght forward rule. Though I still mess it up all the time when I get sloppy...which is most of the time.)

[Donnie B.]

Text-messaging on ittle-bitty handheld devices while driving down the freeway puts a premium on ambulances.
Fixed that for you.

;)

[mahesh]

geonuc...if the tv prog's title was tongue-in-cheek, i am sorry i got worked up about it, enough to mention it here.
...but there again, the night before...late at night ....streaming news on BBC, of all places, post speeches...(pardon me mods)....Clinton hesitates to concede victory....huh? who's in charge? is any body home?

[cjl]

Who among you was ever taught that "computer's," just for an example, was equivalent to/more correct than "computers"? Why would that even be true?
If you're referring to the computer's power cord?

:shifty:

[Tobin Dax]

Fixed that for you.

;)

Really. Mike is making me reconsider renting a car next time I'm home in Oregon. :)

[Gillianren]

If you're referring to the computer's power cord?

:shifty:

Okay, yes. But in a conversation strictly about pluralization?

[geonuc]

geonuc...if the tv prog's title was tongue-in-cheek, i am sorry i got worked up about it, enough to mention it here.
Nah, that wasn't what made me think you were joking (as a few people have certainly done in this thread). It was your stating that bad grammar was a problem - in a post lacking capitalization and any semblance of proper punctuation.

No biggie. My blood pressure is fine (with medication). :)

[sarongsong]

...Text-messaging on ittle-bitty handheld devices while driving down the freeway puts a premium on keystrokes...Starting July 1, 2008, Californians are to use a hands-free arrangement when talking on a cell phone while driving---texting is allowed!
Countries (and States) that ban cell phones while driving (http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/)

[cjl]

Okay, yes. But in a conversation strictly about pluralization?

Very true, and I have to agree with you about that being one of my biggest pet peeves.

[Paul Leeks]

Y R U having a problem with writing like this?Time & a place 4 everything! life isn't B & W, 4 me it's not, it might B 4 U!

I prefer 2 write like this-sometimes,just 2 make it easier.It's the MESSAGE that counts

C U L8TR!!

(and yes I can write properly!)

[Kaptain K]

The problem with texting is that young people get so used to it that it spills over into areas where it is inappropriate, like school work! Some teachers have taken to coming down hard on it. Like failing grades on homework or tests that are not proper English. It may seem harsh, but it gets their attention!

[Van Rijn]

I prefer 2 write like this-sometimes,just 2 make it easier.


Perhaps it is easier for you, but it is harder for the reader.


It's the MESSAGE that counts


What do you think poor writing says about the message?


(and yes I can write properly!)

So, why not write properly? I don't usually comment on spelling in posts, but I draw the line at text message style writing.

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

It's the MESSAGE that counts

inthatcasewhybotherwithproperpunctuationcapataliza tiongrammarorevenspacesbetweenthewords

yourmessageisirrelevantifitisdifficultorimpossible forpeopletoreadit



Edit: The forum software seems to have a maximum word length limit. There's not supposed to be any whitespace in this post.

[Graybeard6]

Am I the only one who is bothered by the confusion between grammar and usage? Punctuation and spelling have nothing to do with grammar. Further, writing is not language, but a representation of language. In the words of Alfred Korzybski, "The map is not the territory."
That is not to say that I defend poor usage; I just don't like to see the two confused.

[Jens]

Am I the only one who is bothered by the confusion between grammar and usage? Punctuation and spelling have nothing to do with grammar.

Probably you are. To be honest, I'm not sure I really understand, and I'm fairly linguistic. In my dictionary, grammar is defined first as the study of "the way the sentences of a language are constructed," and secondly as "the features or constructions" of a language. It's such a broad definition that I can't see how you can easily differentiate it from usage. But then again, I think that "grammar" is a fairly nebulous concept. Some people argue that there is no such thing as grammar, that language should be seen as "templates" or something. It's interesting, though, that "grammar" and "glamour" have the same etymology.

Further, writing is not language, but a representation of language. In the words of Alfred Korzybski, "The map is not the territory."


True. But there again, I think this hinges somewhat on what one means by "language." It may be true that when you criticize a person for writing "2 u", you are criticizing the way that person represents the language rather than the language, but I don't think it's a distinction that most of us worry about very much. Though naturally, I wouldn't criticize the person as being a "poor speaker." :)

The thing about language and writing is something that comes up for me in another context. I'm a constructed language developer, and people who create languages sometimes make new alphabets for them. I often argue that the writing is a secondary problem -- we should develop languages independently of the writing.

[Moose]

I prefer 2 write like this-sometimes,just 2 make it easier.It's the MESSAGE that counts

Presentation is its own message. If a writer can't be bothered to express the message as presentably as possible, there's no reason for the reader to expect that the message says anything worth reading.

[HenrikOlsen]

Am I the only one who is bothered by the confusion between grammar and usage? Punctuation and spelling have nothing to do with grammar.
Spelling doesn't, punctuation does.
As logn as the speling doesn't alow for confusiuon with other wrods that makes for a valid sentense, spelling doesn't change the meaning of the sentense.

Punctuation changes can change the meaning of the sentence and is therefore a crucial part of grammar.

"Eats shoots and leaves." Sentence describing the diet of a herbivore.
"Eats, shoots and leaves." Sentence describing the actions of a hungry Arnold.

[MAPNUT]

OK, here's a question for you experts. The Toyota Matrix is a small car that's increasingly popular. I wanted to say to my wife, "I see a lot of Toyota Matrix (plural of) these days." But "Matrices", the correct plural, just sounds wrong. After all it isn't a real matrix, a multidimensional array of numbers or variables, or any of the other 13 meanings. It's just a car, and Matrix is just a name, so can't I say "I see a lot of Matrixes these days"? I think it makes my meaning clearer.

Actually I know the answer, just want to see who provides it. ;)



That that is is that that is not is not is not that so

[Tzarkoth]

I have a spelling checker.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.

Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh.
My checker tolled me sew.

A checker is a bless sing,
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when I rime.

Each frays come posed up on my screen
eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.

Bee fore a veiling checker's Hour
spelling mite decline,
And if we're lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid too wine.

Butt now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flair,
Their are no fault's with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a ware.

Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den
With wrapped word's fare as hear.

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaw's are knot aloud.

Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays,
Such soft wear four pea seas,
And why eye brake in two averse
Buy righting too pleas.

-- Sauce Unknown

[SeanF]

That that is is that that is not is not is not that so
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

(That is, in fact, a perfectly valid English sentence - it is not missing any punctuation)

[Donnie B.]

OK, here's a question for you experts. The Toyota Matrix is a small car that's increasingly popular. I wanted to say to my wife, "I see a lot of Toyota Matrix (plural of) these days." But "Matrices", the correct plural, just sounds wrong. After all it isn't a real matrix, a multidimensional array of numbers or variables, or any of the other 13 meanings. It's just a car, and Matrix is just a name, so can't I say "I see a lot of Matrixes these days"? I think it makes my meaning clearer.
You could go with the modern trend and say that 'matrix' is its own plural: "I see a lot of Matrix these days". :)

[John Mendenhall]

As I recall, legally, your name is your property and you can spell it and pronounce it anyway you want.

Maybe one of the legal beagles can cite a case.

Like, 100100100110010

[MAPNUT]

You could go with the modern trend and say that 'matrix' is its own plural: "I see a lot of Matrix these days". :)

That sounds like a lot of balonies to me.

(Or must I say, "Those sound like a lot of balonies"?)

(Actually I know the answer to that one too.)

[Gillianren]

Since "Matrix" is, in this case, a brand name, I"d spell the plural "Matrixes," even though it's technically wrong.

As to names, your legal name is the way it appears on your birth certificate unless you've filed a name change. You can call yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect the government to accept it.

[HenrikOlsen]

OK, here's a question for you experts. The Toyota Matrix is a small car that's increasingly popular. I wanted to say to my wife, "I see a lot of Toyota Matrix (plural of) these days." But "Matrices", the correct plural, just sounds wrong. After all it isn't a real matrix, a multidimensional array of numbers or variables, or any of the other 13 meanings. It's just a car, and Matrix is just a name, so can't I say "I see a lot of Matrixes these days"? I think it makes my meaning clearer.

Actually I know the answer, just want to see who provides it. ;)

That that is is that that is not is not is not that so
For some reason my brain suggests "a lot of Toyotas Matrix".

[SeanF]

As to names, your legal name is the way it appears on your birth certificate unless you've filed a name change. You can call yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect the government to accept it.
Gillianren, what's your opinion of names like "e.e. cummings" or "kd lang," spelled without capitalization? Is it just a personal spelling choice, like "Sean/Shawn/Shaun," or is it a violation of the rules of the language? :)

[Donnie B.]

Noms de plume (and noms de stage) are a completely different animal. Anything goes, including that symbol that supposedly stood for "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince".

[Gillianren]

Noms de plume (and noms de stage) are a completely different animal. Anything goes, including that symbol that supposedly stood for "The Artist Formerly Known As Prince".

The LA Times, presumably not having the symbol in their typesetting system, referred to him as "TAFKAP." I referred to him primarily as Prince. Or TAFKAP.

As for the rest . . . well, e. e. cummings gets a lot of slack from me because he's a poet, and poetry is different. (I write poetry myself, and the laws of capitalization are the first thing to go.) As for kd lang--yeah, if that's what she wants to call herself, there's a limit to how much I can argue. If she doesn't want her name to be seen automatically as a proper noun, how is it my problem?

[Jens]

Since "Matrix" is, in this case, a brand name, I"d spell the plural "Matrixes," even though it's technically wrong.


I'm not sure it's technically wrong. Steven Pinker deals with this issue in The Language Instinct. Often we spell things differently when they are not "the real thing." So the plural of Walkman is not Walkmen because a Walkman is not a kind of man. And we say that a baseball player "flied out" instead of "flew out" because hitting a fly is not the same as flying. In this case a Matrix is not a matrix, so I don't think it's necessarily correct to pluralize it as "Matrices."

[Tobin Dax]

As to names, your legal name is the way it appears on your birth certificate unless you've filed a name change. You can call yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect the government to accept it.

Somehow I believe "Gillian" on this one. :)

[LunarOrbit]

I don't know anyone who refers to more than one computer mouse as "mice".

[Maksutov]

The LA Times, presumably not having the symbol in their typesetting system, referred to him as "TAFKAP." I referred to him primarily as Prince. Or TAFKAP....I never referred to that person at all. Just ignored him and his output. Unless it was insomnia time and VH1, etc., had the mind numbing stuff on.

[Maksutov]

I don't know anyone who refers to more than one computer mouse as "mice".Now you do (cyberspace-wise , that is).

[Gillianren]

I never referred to that person at all. Just ignored him and his output. Unless it was insomnia time and VH1, etc., had the mind numbing stuff on.

Hey, I like, um, two of his songs. Out of, what, 25 years of performing?

[Jeff Root]

Once again, I skipped to the last page of the thread (though in this case
I did read the first page when the thread was new and shiny). Two songs
out of a maybe 25-year career is about my speed, too. I tend to like the
stuff that is so good it transcends its classifications, so that it's familiar
to the entire culture. On average, people have good taste. :)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Maksutov]

Hey, I like, um, two of his songs. Out of, what, 25 years of performing?Must have missed those two while listening to good music. :)

[mahesh]

Nah, that wasn't what made me think you were joking (as a few people have certainly done in this thread). It was your stating that bad grammar was a problem - in a post lacking capitalization and any semblance of proper punctuation.

No biggie. My blood pressure is fine (with medication). :)

geonuc, mostly, i use lower case, posting here.
i am neither an e e cummings, nor a k.d. lang.

apologies for lack of puctuation. i was casually trying to convey, more, the essence, about the incorrect usage of the words, the grammar element, rather than the cosmetics of punctuation. shouldn't have done that perhaps.

message received. i assure you, when it comes to formalities, my punctuation is okay.

let me just add.....i hope your blood pressure stays fine even without any medication at all!

have a nice day! :D

[Gillianren]

i was casually trying to convey, more, the essence, about the incorrect usage of the words, the grammar element, rather than the cosmetics of punctuation.

"Cosmetics" of punctuation? Do you really believe that?

[Donnie B.]

"Cosmetics" of punctuation? Do you really believe that?
I do. Why, just the other day I was commenting on the mascara of a certain comma of my acquaintance.

[Torsten]

I don't know anyone who refers to more than one computer mouse as "mice".

One writer called them rodents.

[MAPNUT]

Excellent answer to the Matrix question, Jens. My answer was going to be that I found at least one on-line dictionary that says "matrixes" is an acceptable plural.

That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is not that so?

[Delvo]

When in doubt over pluralization, I default to always adding an "s" or "es" (but never an apostrophe before it or after it unless I'm also possessivizing!). This is English we're speaking here, not Latin. :)

[SeanF]

The LA Times, presumably not having the symbol in their typesetting system, referred to him as "TAFKAP." I referred to him primarily as Prince. Or TAFKAP.
I recently heard him referred to as "The Artist Seldom Known as Subtle." I kind of liked it. :)

As for kd lang--yeah, if that's what she wants to call herself, there's a limit to how much I can argue. If she doesn't want her name to be seen automatically as a proper noun, how is it my problem?
But isn't it a proper noun by definition simply by virtue of being somebody's name?

[mahesh]

"Cosmetics" of punctuation? Do you really believe that?
No, not at all....i've phrased my thought like that, only in the context of my original post, and its punctuation / lack thereof, per se

[Gillianren]

But isn't it a proper noun by definition simply by virtue of being somebody's name?

Yes. I was being silly.

[Paul Beardsley]

Frankly, the reason that apostrophes for pluralization bothers more is that there's no reason to believe it's right. Who among you was ever taught that "computer's," just for an example, was equivalent to/more correct than "computers"? Why would that even be true?
Leaving aside the fact that I did meet a teacher who had been incorrectly taught how to use "its/it's" when she was a child, I utterly agree with the sentiments expressed here.

When drawing electronic circuits, electronic engineers are taught that the capacitor symbol is two parallel lines because that represents the parallel plates, whereas the symbol for an inductor resembles a coil because that's pretty much what an inductor is.

Now, how insane would it be if electronic engineers suddenly decided to use the coil symbol for capacitors? And what if they argued, "So what? I've written '200pF' next to it, so it can only be a capacitor. And anyway, these symbols change all the time. Resistors are long rectagles whereas they used to be zigzags."

[Paul Beardsley]

It's the MESSAGE that counts
There is a danger that the message is, "I am ignorant."

[Maksutov]

The message is the massage.

[Paul Beardsley]

The message is the massage.

Have you ever had a massage from a medium?

[Maksutov]

Have you ever had a massage from a medium?Just once. She was a mclooney, that one.