Old school rules

[SamScribble]

As some of you may have noticed, I’m a bit picky about spelling and grammar. You can probably put this down to my grammar school education and the colour of my hair. (No, it’s not red or green. It’s silver.)

I know that in this age of text and such stuff, people generally know what you mean to say – regardless of what you actually write.

I just received a note to say: 'They know what there [sic] saying is wrong, but there [sic] going to say it anyways [sic]. Don’t frit [sic].’

I shouted at my screen – but it made no difference. Am I alone? Do I need to be taken out the woodshed and given a bit of a kicking? I hope not.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As some of you may have noticed, I’m a bit picky about spelling and grammar. You can probably put this down to my grammar school education and the colour of my hair. (No, it’s not red or green. It’s silver.)

I know that in this age of text and such stuff, people generally know what you mean to say – regardless of what you actually write.

‘I just received a note to say: They know what there [sic] saying is wrong, but there [sic] going to say it anyways [sic]. Don’t frit [sic].’

I shouted at my screen – but it made no difference. Am I alone? Do I need to be taken out the woodshed and given a bit of a kicking? I hope not.

Of course not. Western Civilization depends on folks like you. We'd be speaking Danish if Alfred the Great wasn't an English fanatic.

 

[NaokoSmith]

I know that in this age of text and such stuff, people generally know what you mean to say – regardless of what you actually write.

You know just as well as me that people don't actually know what you meant to say if you write it badly, LOL. Txt spk also has its grammatical and spelling rules, as well as interesting spellchecker assistance. (Remember my student who suggested we all meet in the brassiere? And my phone insisted for ages on spelling my name Smut - although my real name has only one of those letters in it! which made me wonder just how Smart a phone it is.)

People who know how to write proper can have much more fun playing with the rules than people who just say 'you know what I meant to say, so I'm not going to bovver'.


PS, do come out of the woodshed, it would be cold comfort hiding in there and you might see something nasty

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Txt speak...

Well, I guess when you only have 144 characters to say something, it could have it's place in society.

The problem is...

Those that use txt speak on their fone (saved one character there) carry it over to their emails, chat rooms, and real life correspondence, even into their writing here at Lit. I have run into several stories that started out using proper spelling and grammar, but quickly degrade into txt speak. And being the lazy lout that I am, I don't report them, but how did they get past Laurel anyway?

 

[DreamCloud]

Spelling and grammar are nothing but an agreed set of guidelines defined by previous works and labeled by self proclaimed experts. We have been adding new words and modifying definitions at an alarming rate. There are multiple ways to spell many words. A lot of rules contain so many exceptions that they teeter on the edge of not being rules at all. You may fret over an error, but if it is duplicated enough it will become the rule.

I have spent a year trying to learn the rules. I still don't comprehend half the vocabulary that is used to define them. I am now beginning to realize that the story matters more than the style used to paint it. I unintentionally use the wrong colors all the time. Readers point them out, but have been most forgiving. I'm just creating new rules after all.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Well, I guess when you only have 144 characters to say something, it could have it's place in society.

Its <snerk>

We have been adding new words and modifying definitions at an alarming rate.

I think my favourite redefined word is "silly". This British Library link says it comes from the old English word seely, meaning happy, blissful, lucky or blessed. I actually thought 'seely' meant 'pretty' in the first place. I always felt there was a kind of femininity to 'silly', as if it depicts a pretty little thing. I'm sure I'm just being romantic about it but I feel as if words retain a tinge of their former meanings. Like 'nice' which once meant precise, so when I say 'that's nice', I think it means something that fits particularly well. (Although I see from this discussion that it has changed dramatically since its first usage.)

I sometimes like to use @ in its original form, which meant 'at the rate of'. I write on Piglet's dinner money envelope: 5 days @ £2.20, £11, LOL.

The French tried hard to legislate for the use only of French words for a while. Their downfall was football (soccer). There were too many words borrowed from the English and the commentators couldn't keep up using the clunky old French versions.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Its <snerk>



I think my favourite redefined word is "silly". This British Library link says it comes from the old English word seely, meaning happy, blissful, lucky or blessed. I actually thought 'seely' meant 'pretty' in the first place. I always felt there was a kind of femininity to 'silly', as if it depicts a pretty little thing. I'm sure I'm just being romantic about it but I feel as if words retain a tinge of their former meanings. Like 'nice' which once meant precise, so when I say 'that's nice', I think it means something that fits particularly well. (Although I see from this discussion that it has changed dramatically since its first usage.)

I sometimes like to use @ in its original form, which meant 'at the rate of'. I write on Piglet's dinner money envelope: 5 days @ £2.20, £11, LOL.

The French tried hard to legislate for the use only of French words for a while. Their downfall was football (soccer). There were too many words borrowed from the English and the commentators couldn't keep up using the clunky old French versions.

feelings are: mad sad glad afraid sleepy horny hungry tired Theyre sensory but not cognitive. There is no such experience as I FEEL LIKE A MILLION DOLLARS unless your skin has the texture of paper currency.

 

[sr71plt]

As some of you may have noticed, I’m a bit picky about spelling and grammar. You can probably put this down to my grammar school education and the colour of my hair. (No, it’s not red or green. It’s silver.)

I know that in this age of text and such stuff, people generally know what you mean to say – regardless of what you actually write.

I just received a note to say: 'They know what there [sic] saying is wrong, but there [sic] going to say it anyways [sic]. Don’t frit [sic].’

I shouted at my screen – but it made no difference. Am I alone? Do I need to be taken out the woodshed and given a bit of a kicking? I hope not.

Their, their, their, everthin will be Okeydokie.

 

[sr71plt]

Spelling and grammar are nothing but an agreed set of guidelines defined by previous works and labeled by self proclaimed experts.

Nope. Established dictionaries aren't self-proclaimed. They are accepted by others. In publishing, for instance, the most important person is the buyer--the reader--and publishers will adopt (proclaim) certain dictionaries in order to keep the read as understandable as possible. It's not all about the author.

No, you can't just willy-nilly create, pick up, and drop spellings and word meanings and be understood by readers (and if you can't convey meaning, the words you coin are worthless). Most of these dictionary authorities are actually pretty quick about entering new words into the lexicon. Webster's Collegiate, for instance (the proclaimed authority in most of U.S. publishing without giving you a vote on that), puts out a new formal edition only ever ten years or so, but, unknown to most, it republishes and updates about four times a year. It also is pretty quick to adopt slang words.

Even informal dictionaries, such as the Urban Dictionary and various other ones on the Internet provide something better and accepted by others (not self-proclaimed) than "I made it up and it's up the reader to figure it out" guidance on spelling and word usage to bring writer and reader together in a mutual understanding of what is meant. And to the extent they do, it doesn't matter who proclaimed them.

If you, as a writer, want to throw standards out the window that are trying to bring the writer and reader together on mutual understanding of a term/spelling, you're just being arrogant and dumb--and deserve to be unread.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Its <snerk>

Bite me! Like you never did it.

 

[Handley_Page]

As some of you may have noticed, I’m a bit picky about spelling and grammar. You can probably put this down to my grammar school education and the colour of my hair. (No, it’s not red or green. It’s silver.)

I know that in this age of text and such stuff, people generally know what you mean to say – regardless of what you actually write.

I just received a note to say: 'They know what there [sic] saying is wrong, but there [sic] going to say it anyways [sic]. Don’t frit [sic].’

I shouted at my screen – but it made no difference. Am I alone? Do I need to be taken out the woodshed and given a bit of a kicking? I hope not.

NO, you are not.
Tony Blair's "Education, Education, Education" speech made me wonder.
I'm seeing the ill-trained, dimwitted writers leaving school now; I conclude that he lied.

Txt speak...

Well, I guess when you only have 144 characters to say something, it could have it's place in society.

But not where it is an important letter.
I've see a couple of CV (Resume') letters written in Txt spk.
They went straight in the bin.

 

[DreamCloud]

Nope. Established dictionaries aren't self-proclaimed.

Yes they are. Just because you choose to accept them, does not mean I have to. It is more of a religion. I am just not that devout. I am that dissonant jazz player that makes your ears bleed.

The amount of homonyms, both homophones and homographs, is ridicules. I find it hard to believe they were codified by intelligent people. You can call me arrogant if you wish. I am just pointing out the idiocy of our language. It is not even close to the science some believe it is.

A few writers got together and wrote BSG. They gave birth to a new homonym: frack. They violated the rules without a thought. It made it on many t-shirts, articles and books. No one had any trouble understanding them. The Oxford experts don't accept the new meaning. I do, rebel that I am. Good thing I don't authorize dictionary words. I would have added another homonym and screwed up the language even more.

Oh, and I have always been full of shit. I cover up my inadequacies with the language arts by blaming the language. It can't be a mistake if the rule itself is in error. I must have mother issues - she was an English teacher.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes they are. Just because you choose to accept them, does not mean I have to.

I get that attitude. I've encountered more than a few in publishing with the "it's all about me" attitude. They didn't stay there that long.

 

[Handley_Page]

Spelling and grammar are nothing but an agreed set of guidelines defined by previous works and labeled by self proclaimed experts. We have been adding new words and modifying definitions at an alarming rate. There are multiple ways to spell many words. A lot of rules contain so many exceptions that they teeter on the edge of not being rules at all. You may fret over an error, but if it is duplicated enough it will become the rule.

I have spent a year trying to learn the rules. I still don't comprehend half the vocabulary that is used to define them. I am now beginning to realize that the story matters more than the style used to paint it. I unintentionally use the wrong colors all the time. Readers point them out, but have been most forgiving. I'm just creating new rules after all.

There are 'generally accepted' ways of spelling words (obviously, differences in country/ culture may put up a few known problems).
If we all use them, we all know what's being said.

So, when trying to communicate, you use what ammounts to your 'private' language system (just because you can), and expect a reader to understand it?
And the 'new rules' which you have made; are they also to be learned by the readership ?
How arrogant can you get?
Don't you realise that we, the rest of society, without access to your 'Rules' cannot possibly follow your writing?.
It might just as well be in some wierd Cuniform or similar.
(I was going to use the term "Hyroglyph" but I can get a dictionary for that).
Of course, there's also the releif that we are not talking of 'commercial writings' here. If people had to PAY for your writings, it might be a trifle too 'niche' for mainstream readership - and you might well starve.

Its <snerk>

I think my favourite redefined word is "silly".

The French tried hard to legislate for the use only of French words for a while. Their downfall was football (soccer). There were too many words borrowed from the English and the commentators couldn't keep up using the clunky old French versions.

The Academie Francaise (??) had a terrible time with simple things like "Le Scotch Tape". When we got to the PC, it was "L'ordinateur personnel" which went down like a lead baloon, or so I'm told.

Yes they are. Just because you choose to accept them, does not mean I have to. It is more of a religion. I am just not that devout. I am that dissonant jazz player that makes your ears bleed.

The amount of homonyms, both homophones and homographs, is ridicules. I find it hard to believe they were codified by intelligent people. You can call me arrogant if you wish. I am just pointing out the idiocy of our language. It is not even close to the science some believe it is.

Oh, and I have always been full of shit. I cover up my inadequacies with the language arts by blaming the language. It can't be a mistake if the rule itself is in error. I must have mother issues - she was an English teacher.

Erm. . . "Ridicules"?
Is this an example of your personal/invented 'New Rules of spelling?

 

[DreamCloud]

I shall retire my arrogance and attempt to toe the line. Conformity is, after all, a goal we should all strive to maintain. Consider me chastised well.

Forgive me for intruding in your cabal with an errant viewpoint. I will stick to writing stories for awhile.

 

[ElectricBlue]

No, you can't just willy-nilly create, pick up, and drop spellings and word meanings and be understood by readers

Ummm, yes you can...

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

and the rest of it...


Shakespeare had a fair go at using words for the first time, also, I believe...

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html


Best not make too many definitive statements, flyboy, it's so easy to be proved wrong.... just sayin'

 

[sr71plt]

Ummm, yes you can...

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

and the rest of it...


Shakespeare had a fair go at using words for the first time, also, I believe...

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/biography/wordsinvented.html


Best not make too many definitive statements, flyboy, it's so easy to be proved wrong.... just sayin'

DreamCloud--the "you" of my post--is not Shakespeare. Neither are you.

Your effect on creating words that stick in today's world has a probability close to zilch.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I shall retire my arrogance and attempt to toe the line. Conformity is, after all, a goal we should all strive to maintain. Consider me chastised well.

Forgive me for intruding in your cabal with an errant viewpoint. I will stick to writing stories for awhile.

The word you want is COMMON-CAUSE. ON THE SAME PAGE works, too. BABEL not so well. ANARCHY? Naaah.