Archive for December, 2008
[In case you haven’t already, you really ought to go read Jonathan’s post in which he rather forcefully denounces “grammar NAZIS.” I then invite you — no — implore you to come back and read my response, below.]
Dear Jonathan,
I understand some of your frustration, and I try to maintain an attitude of understanding and lenience toward some misuses and abuses of the English language in this era — because, as you said, language is constantly evolving.
I am most forgiving in the texting realm; less so in the blogging realm, because people who blog generally have access to full keyboards, complete with a handy backspace option. You will notice, however, that I nearly always refrain from correcting and thereby making enemies of my fellow bloggers. I simply endure, and try to make heads or tails of some brilliant ideas buried underneath piles of misplaced apostrophes, run-on sentences and atrocious to/too/two confusion. The paucity of semicolons I will reserve for another post later on.
Notwithstanding my and anybody else’s endurance of grammatical errors galore, the evolution of language does not excuse those who abuse the communication tool. People who speak and write in the language (and want to make a contribution to the already-BEYOND-overwhelming mass of published work — much of it grammatically sound) really don’t have a good excuse for not knowing its (not it’s) proper uses.
Plenty of grammarians break language rules all the time, but they do it with precise intention, and for a useful purpose. And you can tell the difference between their intellectual rebellion and the outright ignorance so prevalent among bloggers and other writers of this brave new writing world.
For example, the evolution of a word like “text” from a noun into a verb is an intelligent, useful linguistic development. It demonstrates not only technological and societal acumen, but a keen sense of style as well. The blurring of the apostrophe’s proper place and function does neither.
All language abuses, misuses and other developments should be justifiable for the sake of clarity and better communication. Blogging world, take note.
Writing “your” when you really mean to say “you’re” only places me under the mistaken impression that you are referring to a <noun> in my possession; how on earth am I to know you intended to address me directly if you do not say so? Confusion of possession/plurality/direct address is a serious grammatical crime.
All that said, I understand your frustration with people who comment on your posts only to criticize your grammar. My suggestion would be to a) make the suggested changes to your posts (heck, I have to proof and edit mine numerous times before I get them right) and b) to retaliate and criticize theirs in turn. This will be good practice for you, and it qualifies as community service, as you’re helping to make the blogosphere a better place to communicate.
Incidentally, you claim you do not criticize people for trigonometric ineptitude; however, if they were attempting to communicate a trigonometric concept to you, you would find it offensive if they did not do their homework and understand the concept in full before trying to teach it or use it for an analogy. Otherwise, they’re just wasting your time. People who purport to be good writers of things they want others to read ought to at least demonstrate a better-than-average grasp on the language in which they are trying to communicate; otherwise, they should lay (not lie) the pen down or step away from the keyboard.
I chose to post this on my own blog instead of in your comments section, in hopes you might be more likely to read it; and also, because you instructed grammarians not to comment if they only wanted to disagree with you.
Affectionately,
A faithful reader
Recommended reading:
For the mechanics of grammar:
- “Working With Words” by Brian S. Brooks, James L. Pinson, and Jean Gaddy Wilson
- “The Elements of Style” by William Strunk and E.B. White
- “The Classic Guide to Writing Well” by Rudolph Flesch
- [more to come later when I have had a chance to peruse my bookcase at home]
For style:
- “Spunk & Bite: A Writer’s Guide to Bold, Contemporary Style” by Arthur Plotnik
- “Best Newspaper Writing” (any year, any editors. My personal favorite is the 2007 edition) — this is a FABULOUS catalogue of exemplary writing in all styles.
- “Writing With Style” by John R. Trimble
- [again, more once I’ve had a chance to look through my library]
I’ve gotten several e-mails from acquaintances complaining about Obama buying a purebred puppy for his girls, and the latest was the one about a $30,000 ring he allegedly bought for his wife.
The e-mails are usually accompanied by some sarcastic comments along the lines of, “keep buying, Obama, maybe that’ll get us out of a recession.”
Which is, first of all, fallacious logic.
Second of all, let me share with you the bullsh*t factor in this “story”: It’s not true. Read more about how untrue it is at Politico — a REAL news source.
But third of all, I’m tired of hearing about news that’s not news. It is irrelevant to me, you and everybody else. It’s kind of like Palin’s daughter who was pregnant. Who cared? And who cares where Obama spends his personal money? I mean, unless it’s in some scandalous foreign investment, or if he got the money taking bribes from somebody. Now that would be a story.
This alleged ring purchase, even if it were true, is irrelevant because it is not newsworthy. Since when do journalists allow The Daily Mail to dictate what is a) newsworthy and b) true? We don’t let the National Enquirer set the news agenda for us, so why should we let the U.K.’s The Daily Mail. (Notice I didn’t put a question mark after that last sentence. It means it’s a rhetorical question, because the answer should be obvious.)
The ring fib, which has unfortunately spread like the bubonic plague already, does not meet even the loosest criteria for newsworthiness (this is why, among many other reasons, The Daily Mail is not a legitimate news source).
There are several criteria for newsworthiness that journalists use ALL THE TIME to determine whether and how to pitch a story to their editors:
Timing: Is it a new event or development? We’re going to skip over analysis of this one, since the “story” doesn’t fit the other criteria and it therefore doesn’t matter how timely it is.
Significance: Usually we measure this in number of people affected by the story. This affects, at most, five people. Obama, Michelle, their kids, and the alleged jeweler. None of us are affected by his personal decision, and this is a pretty darn good reason not to care. If the reporter thinks there’s a good reason we should care, he/she should share that with us. Give impact to your story. Rule No. 1 in any good story: IMPACT.
Proximity: The U.K. is not really that close to the U.S., so they really have no business digging into the personal lives of our president-elect without significant cause to do so. For the sake of giving The Daily Mail the benefit of the doubt, geographical distance is not the only thing implied in proximity. It can also mean that a person/organization’s situation is very similar to, you know, a lot of people’s, and is therefore a microcosm of a larger trend/threat/what-have-you. A story that demonstrates good use of the proximity factor would be one people read and go, “Oh wow, I should keep that in mind,” or “That could have been me.” I don’t really know of anyone doing that.
Prominence: This is the only newsworthiness criterion the ring fib fits. Because Obama is famous. If, say, Joe The Plumber bought a ring for his wife, we wouldn’t — wait, no, bad example. If your hubby bought you a new ring, I promise you it would not make the headlines. Because Obama is a prominent figure, anything and everything he does is automatically a candidate for at least the inside pages of your nearest newspaper.
Human Interest: Human interest stories can break a lot of the other rules of newsworthiness, because they’re tearjerkers, inspirational pieces, amusing ones, etc. Their purpose is to evoke emotion. They often don’t age quickly and are relatively timeless. The ring fib neither inspired, amused nor provoked weeping. Also, even for the two people who care today, who is going to care, say, next month?
Katherine Poythress 