You know what I find funny?

[Marquis]

People who use perfect society punctuation like "U/us" in a message where common words are spelled incorrectly.

 

[Blushing Bottom]

LOL

Funny is not the word I would have chosen.

People who use perfect society punctuation like "U/us" in a message where common words are spelled incorrectly.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Strangely enough, I have gotten to the point where I almost don't even see incorrectly-spelled words unless I have to pause to figure out what they are supposed to be. It's strange, because I'm a bit of a bug on correct spelling, punctuation and sentence/paragraph construction, but now I focus on just mine, and don't worry about theirs (except in few cases where I might tell an online friend that they've blown it on something that they really shouldn't, like a sig line). (And yes, I know that sometimes some of my sentences can get kind of convoluted. If they're read carefully, though, they do make sense.)

Poor spelling is just part of the online world: many people can't spell, or can't type, or both, so I've learned to read typo-nese fluently. The U/us thing in a message that's otherwise poorly spelled, though, is ironic. One wonders, though, why people who *know* they can't spell/type worth a damn don't use spellcheckers, or at least preview their messages before posting. I do, and I'm a damned good speller and typist. I have to be; it's how I make my living.

 

[Marquis]

Strangely enough, I have gotten to the point where I almost don't even see incorrectly-spelled words unless I have to pause to figure out what they are supposed to be. It's strange, because I'm a bit of a bug on correct spelling, punctuation and sentence/paragraph construction, but now I focus on just mine, and don't worry about theirs (except in few cases where I might tell an online friend that they've blown it on something that they really shouldn't, like a sig line). (And yes, I know that sometimes some of my sentences can get kind of convoluted. If they're read carefully, though, they do make sense.)

Poor spelling is just part of the online world: many people can't spell, or can't type, or both, so I've learned to read typo-nese fluently. The U/us thing in a message that's otherwise poorly spelled, though, is ironic. One wonders, though, why people who *know* they can't spell/type worth a damn don't use spellcheckers, or at least preview their messages before posting. I do, and I'm a damned good speller and typist. I have to be; it's how I make my living.

Are you an English teacher?

I have a question for you then, is there a word for when people take metaphors literally?

Like a malapropism or spoonerism type descriptor.

 

[brioche]

Are you an English teacher?

I have a question for you then, is there a word for when people take metaphors literally?

Like a malapropism or spoonerism type descriptor.

Hmm.

Well,
I knew a guy who used to read poems and be oblivious to any undertones. For example, if a poem was talking about someone who was looking outside a house at a banquet she was unable to eat, he assumed she was homeless.
He was looking at the denotative meaning of the words, and not the connotative meaning of the words.

I don't think there is a one word term though. At least, not an offical one...

I don't use spell-check here, because I noticed that I was getting more dependent on it when I used it a lot - writing essays, etc. I made a lot more simple errors, and didn't catch them. I still make errors, but not as many, and I catch more of them - although I have learned that if you click Edit immediately after a post and only correct one word, the italicised "Last edited by..." doesn't appear.

 

[Softouch911]

Are you an English teacher?

I have a question for you then, is there a word for when people take metaphors literally?

Like a malapropism or spoonerism type descriptor.

In rhetoric, it's now thought of as "literalism."

I think of it as imagination challenged.

Best,
ST

 

[VelvetDarkness]

People who use perfect society punctuation like "U/us" in a message where common words are spelled incorrectly.

Yep. That and the absolutely awful grammar. People who use "U/us" when posting or typing have usually confused the shit out of themselves and forgotten what their point was by the time they've laboriously punched it out with the 2 thumbs on their left hand. Nothing if not entertaining.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

In rhetoric, it's now thought of as "literalism."

I think of it as imagination challenged.

Best,
ST

What she said.

 

[JMohegan]

Hmm.

Well,
I knew a guy who used to read poems and be oblivious to any undertones. For example, if a poem was talking about someone who was looking outside a house at a banquet she was unable to eat, he assumed she was homeless.
He was looking at the denotative meaning of the words, and not the connotative meaning of the words.

That describes me pretty well.

ST's label "imagination challenged" doesn't really fit (for me, at least). If the first word in her phrase were changed to "abstract", then the description would be more apt.

I am a literal, logical, analytical thinker. That's just the way my mind works, and it doesn't work the other way around. The only English class I didn't loathe was Shakespeare, because nobody else understood what the hell he was trying to say right off the bat either - and requests for detailed explanations of his lines were therefore de rigeur.

There are ways to compensate for this cognitive weakness, which effects interpersonal communications in every corner of my life. But none are as swift or effective as spell check, clearly.

 

[graceanne]

That describes me pretty well.

ST's label "imagination challenged" doesn't really fit (for me, at least). If the first word in her phrase were changed to "abstract", then the description would be more apt.

I am a literal, logical, analytical thinker. That's just the way my mind works, and it doesn't work the other way around. The only English class I didn't loathe was Shakespeare, because nobody else understood what the hell he was trying to say right off the bat either - and requests for detailed explanations of his lines were therefore de rigeur.

There are ways to compensate for this cognitive weakness, which effects interpersonal communications in every corner of my life. But none are as swift or effective as spell check, clearly.

Some people are very literal, and their's nothing wrong with that - it makes them good at jobs that other people who're weighed down with nuances would suck at. It takes all kinds, and all that.

 

[intothewoods]

That describes me pretty well.

ST's label "imagination challenged" doesn't really fit (for me, at least). If the first word in her phrase were changed to "abstract", then the description would be more apt.

I am a literal, logical, analytical thinker. That's just the way my mind works, and it doesn't work the other way around. The only English class I didn't loathe was Shakespeare, because nobody else understood what the hell he was trying to say right off the bat either - and requests for detailed explanations of his lines were therefore de rigeur.

There are ways to compensate for this cognitive weakness, which effects interpersonal communications in every corner of my life. But none are as swift or effective as spell check, clearly.

Lol, well at least you're aware of the way your mind works!

 

[Velvet Bubbles]

I've debated, rather a lot recently, on pointing out that one can use both dictionary or Mirriam Webster. But how do you do that without offending those one is merely trying to help?

 

[BiBunny]

I'm an English major, and I'm very literal-minded. It's why I hate literature classes. To this day, I still don't know how people get the readings they do out of works (poetry in particular). Makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[JMohegan]

Some people are very literal, and their's nothing wrong with that - it makes them good at jobs that other people who're weighed down with nuances would suck at. It takes all kinds, and all that.

I agree!

Thank you, Grace.

 

[Netzach]

My brain goes from the literal read to the less literal as quickly as possible. But M's doesn't. Hence he's able to figure out things, like "There Ain't no Tits on the Radio" by the Scissor Sisters is in fact about TV hookers and cops while I glossed over that fine point. However he might say that the Rime of the Ancient Mariner is about a large bird.

 

[graceanne]

I agree!

Thank you, Grace.

Yeah, yeah. Just remember this if I ever go back to college - you get to help me with my fucking math.

I hate math.

 

[brioche]

I'm an English major, and I'm very literal-minded. It's why I hate literature classes. To this day, I still don't know how people get the readings they do out of works (poetry in particular). Makes no sense whatsoever.

Yup. Honours English here. I tend to be analytical and literal about many things, but poetry isn't one of them. However, I did proclaim halfway through one year that I had no personal opinions anymore after being asked to debate both sides of everything.
They actually split the English classes into time periods and you had to take a certain number of credits from each. I am SO glad it's over. One term I had 25 novels and texts.
Just remember, if you can back it up with the text, your interpretation isn't wrong. I remember insisting that one poem made me think of hands, and no one could see why. Then we saw pieces of art by the artist the poem was about at our university's art gallery and the focal point in almost every one was the person's hands.

 

[jadefirefly]

I'm not a terribly literal person, but poetry analysis is NOT a fun thing, in my book. Ugh.

 

[JMohegan]

Yeah, yeah. Just remember this if I ever go back to college - you get to help me with my fucking math.

It would be my pleasure.

 

[Softouch911]

I'm an English major, and I'm very literal-minded. It's why I hate literature classes. To this day, I still don't know how people get the readings they do out of works (poetry in particular). Makes no sense whatsoever.

Y'know I used to run into this a lot .... And (in my experience) the fault usually lies with the teachers. Teachers who "get it" often leap over all the steps their mind intuitively take and explain a conclusion that is obvious to others who "get it."

But if you stalled out at step 1, or step 8, or somewhere else along the line (for whatever reason) you're just plain lost.

Too many people teach to entertain themselves -- especially in university classes -- with wit and insight rather than focusing on understanding.

Respectfully,
ST

 

[lushlucid]

*sigh*

 

[Evil_Geoff]

Like gracie, I hate math... I have no "intuitive" grasp of numbers, though I did very well up to and through geometry because I am a "visual" learner...

I could "see" solid objects representing numbers and I can create and hold "shapes" in my head for the various geometric figures.

Then came algebra which I barely survived and trigonometry which I never, ever came to any understanding of... Took me 1 and 1/2 semesters to understand the "wrapping" function. A TA explained it to me "okay, take a piece of string and grab a can of x diameter... tape the end of the string to the can, and "wrap" the string around the can..."

BING! The bell rang, the light came on and instant understanding as soon as I had a visual reference to relate the problem to. The abstract stuff everyone else tried to explain things with almost drove me mad with frustration. Not that it's a very far drive...

 

[JMohegan]

Y'know I used to run into this a lot .... And (in my experience) the fault usually lies with the teachers. Teachers who "get it" often leap over all the steps their mind intuitively take and explain a conclusion that is obvious to others who "get it."

But if you stalled out at step 1, or step 8, or somewhere else along the line (for whatever reason) you're just plain lost.

Too many people teach to entertain themselves -- especially in university classes -- with wit and insight rather than focusing on understanding.

Respectfully,
ST

That may be true for some, but it doesn't really fit with my experience. The main problem for me was that the teachers themselves never seemed to "get it" - meaning, they had little or no understanding of the way a literal thinker's brain works.

Well-intentioned, hard-working, and kind though many of them were, they would nevertheless make fallacious assumptions precisely along the lines of your "imagination challenged" label above, and these incorrect assumptions inevitably led them down the wrong path in trying to help me out.

 

[graceanne]

Like gracie, I hate math... I have no "intuitive" grasp of numbers, though I did very well up to and through geometry because I am a "visual" learner...

I could "see" solid objects representing numbers and I can create and hold "shapes" in my head for the various geometric figures.

Then came algebra which I barely survived and trigonometry which I never, ever came to any understanding of... Took me 1 and 1/2 semesters to understand the "wrapping" function. A TA explained it to me "okay, take a piece of string and grab a can of x diameter... tape the end of the string to the can, and "wrap" the string around the can..."

BING! The bell rang, the light came on and instant understanding as soon as I had a visual reference to relate the problem to. The abstract stuff everyone else tried to explain things with almost drove me mad with frustration. Not that it's a very far drive...

If you could see me, you'd know that my eyes are doing that swirly thing. I lost you completely lost me at seeing math.