Let's kill the Grammar Gestapo

When I start reading something conversational on the net and all the spelling and grammar is 'correct', and there is no hint of any dialect then I assume I am reading a press release or am having a conversation with my old english teacher.

Posted by: Mac on September 19, 2002 03:52 AM

 

Mac, you need a comma between the words 'dialect' and 'then'.

Write "I must not abandon shopping trollies" 50 times on the black board.

Posted by: Mac's old English teacher on September 19, 2002 06:14 AM

 

Isn't this just the on-line manifestation of the fact that the English language is wonderfully flexible and ever-changing? We've been doing this for hundreds of years, the internet just adds an extra dimension to it. But please - don't stop using capitals. It makes text LESS readable.

Another point - the article is talking about English only. There are many languages which simply cannot accommodate this kind of flexibility. I learnt Russian when I was 15 / 16 (and forgot it by the time I was 18), and the thing which stuck in my mind was being told that getting tenses etc. wrong could render your words nonsensical. This doesn't happen in English. Which is surely another reason why English is becoming the world language, upsetting the French in the process.

Posted by: Alan Fisher on September 19, 2002 06:21 AM

 

Language should and does change. However, English grammar and punctuation evolved to pave the way for universal understanding for English speakers. If you ignore grammar, spelling and punctuation rules, you run the risk of people misunderstanding your content.

It may well take more time for people to wade through your content when it's written poorly than it would for you to write clearly in the first place. So you save time at the expense of everyone who must read your writing . Plus, those who aren't familiar with your abbreviations won't understand what you are saying.

Clear writing aids clear reasoning. Your audience should determine your usage. IM, gaming, and email are specific audiences. When in those environments, you can be somewhat assured that your audience will know your usage. In the broader web environment, you don't have that assurance.

Would you feel comfortable ordering an item online if the description page were filled with abbreviations that were understandable only to people working in that industry? I wouldn't. Alphabet soup descriptions do not sell products well.

And if a person who knows English as a second language needs to read your site for research, he or she may not understand abbreviations or colloquialisms.

And finally, how is typing kewl any easier/faster than typing cool? You have to type an ew combination which is more difficult than an oo combination. Does it make you more cool to type kewl?

Posted by: jan on September 19, 2002 10:37 AM

 

Ya, shure, u betcha.

(Did I mention I live in Minnesota?)

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on September 19, 2002 11:01 AM

 

When I start reading something conversational on the net and all the spelling and grammar is 'correct'... I assume I am reading a press release...

Correct spelling and grammar? Press release? I didn't read that right... umm... correctly. ('Correctly' is the adverb that modifies the verb 'read', isn't it?)

Posted by: Mahesh Shantaram on September 19, 2002 11:34 AM

 

My personal feeling is that I like to read things that are written in a conversational style, which by design often means the piece will be grammatically incorrect.

I really can't stand when people correct grammar on a personal site. Live and let live and all that. When people do that, especially publicly, I feel like they are just trying to puff themselves up. Plus, in every case that I have noticed, the person correcting grammar uses incorrect grammer themselves!!

I think there is a bit of split-personality when it comes to the web. I am a stickler for grammar in "real life" but on the web I write more conversationally - I think a lot of people do the same thing.

I don't think it erodes non-web correspondence. If someone is going to use poor grammar, they're just going to do it and it won't be because they can be sloppy online.

Posted by: Lydia on September 19, 2002 12:18 PM

 

I'm a card-carrying language nazi. :)

It pisses me off when people write emails like they were sending SMS messages. If you wouldn't write "hope 2 meet u 4 coffee l8r 2day" in a business letter on paper, why should email make it acceptable?

Lydia, writing in a conversational style and being grammatically correct aren't mutually exclusive. I do both all the time.

And I'm "mm", John. I'll spell it out next time. :))

(There, I started a sentence with "and". Those English school teachers can bugger off.)

Posted by: MadMan on September 19, 2002 01:42 PM

 

MadMan, I agree - they aren't mutually exclusive, but I am more forgiving about grammer online than I am in paper correspondence. Magazines, newspapers, business letters - don't even think of being "casual." I guess that was my point. I do have to admit, though, that I really don't like the "hacker" language stuff (like l8tr) - I wasn't referring to that with my "conversational" description. Don't substitute weirdo words for regular ones and we're cool.

Posted by: Lydia on September 19, 2002 03:10 PM

 

Lydia, all those nuts (like lawyers, academic profs) use the overly formal, hard-to-read language because it makes them look important. Hey, if you can't follow what's written, you clearly aren't as smart as the bozos who wrote it, right? That's why you get "we are experiencing precipitation" instead of "it's raining". :)

At my first job, I developed over 100 business forms for the company. The first thing I did was replace all the "corporate" language with easy-to-understand plain English.

Simplicity, clarity, humanity - traits to strive for in writing.

PS: You spelt "grammar" wrong. Ha ha ha!

Posted by: MadMan on September 19, 2002 04:42 PM

 

I have long believed that the web and email will be the death of traditional grammar.

That and the US............... watch it, that stone nearly hit me ;)

Posted by: JB on September 19, 2002 05:16 PM

 

Hey now, JB, lots of us Americans no's how to talk and rite good. Ever sence George Warshington started this country, we all gets learnt good edumacations. So until ya'll know how to talk and rite propper American, I reckon you'd best not be makin fun.

Posted by: Uncle Sam's Nephew on September 19, 2002 05:26 PM

 

Oops! That was a typo, as you can see by the previous post! Dammit! (hee hee)

I think a focus on simplicity (and now I'll be incorporating clarity and humanity into my mantra, as well - good ideas) is essential for communication. Too often I see people who want to sound important rather than be understood. That's a shame. I am far more impressed by the person who gets his/her point across clearly and succinctly.

BTW, MadMan, what is your opinion about the use of "their" and "they" as a gender-neutral pronoun? As in "The user could pull out their manual and actually read it." Do you always use the him/her he/she method?

Posted by: Lydia on September 19, 2002 05:34 PM

 

Language usage (style, tone and "correctness") should depend on audience should be purposeful based on the target (or targit) audience (folks reedin' it).

Gerry McGovern's thoughts on style and tone

Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace

Posted by: Lyle - Usability Guru on September 21, 2002 10:15 AM

 

Lydia, you can avoid the their/they problem if you make your subject plural to begin with:

Users can pull out their manuals and read them.

That'll take care of most instances. But I do use him/her, he/she occasionally. I don't like it, but I do it as a bow to political correctness. PC stuff annoys me, but I live with it.

Posted by: jan on September 25, 2002 02:22 PM

 

I do like that method, Jan. I try to use it whenever possible, but too much can make the piece sound kind of passive, so sometimes I'll go back to him/her, or just avoid mentioning people altogether. For internal documentation, I always use "he" or "him" due to laziness.

Posted by: Lydia on September 25, 2002 07:26 PM