I've heard it more times than I care to count - Viewers are most interested in the weather, so even though the homepage of a given site will be the first to come up, many will click immediately on the weather tab.
So one of the main functions of a person like me is to help viewers get the information they need as quickly as possible when it comes to weather alerts.
I've seen it happen that on a day when there is severe weather, views on a news Website will skyrocket.
Where I currently work, one of our busiest online days involved a very nasty winter storm that dumped a huge amount of snow on the area. We hit more than 200,000 views on that day alone.
And the weather has been very freaky these last couple of years. From the record-breaking snowfall amounts in my part of Virginia in 2009/2010 to the kind of nasty, super humid heat you don't normally see this far inland. Now we're got the kind of biting cold I haven't felt since I moved out of New Jersey more than a decade ago.
The effects of this crazy weather will be felt on all levels of society from the outdoorsy who like to hunt but won't have as large an opportunity to do so because of falling wildlife populations, to people looking at supplies in the grocery stores where prices are climbing, to people born under that wandering star who want to get away but can't afford it because gas has gotten so high...
So I understand that people want to know what the weather's going to do. Then there are the calls from people asking, "Is it gonna storm tomorra?" Well, when they start giving you their exact address and expect you to give them a weather forecast for that location, it's just a tad ridiculous.
I think my biggest beef with weather complaints comes when I get yelled at by a viewer because the station is cutting in every 15 minutes for a weather alert, say a tornado warning, and the person couldn't watch one of his or her favorite shows. The complaint being that the warning didn't cover that specific person's area, so why was the station interrupting his or her entertainment?
Take a Severe Thunderstorm Warning for example. Or that Tornado Warning. Or a Winter Weather Warning. First off, the National Weather Service is NOT going to issue one of these alerts just on a whim!
Like people who scream "global warming" (though the newer "global climate change" may be more applicable) is a myth, that it's just a fantasy, but fail to consider that scientists must use the Scientific Method to reach conclusions and that method requires data to be replicable... There is science behind what the NWS predicts.
Predictions may not be all that good days out, but within a couple of hours or even minutes, they're usually pretty accurate. There is no such thing as a "guaranteed forecast," because that's an oxymoron!
So we've got a warning out there. Even if it's a hyper-local one, say for just one town, there is still a need to get that information out to all. Such weather developments, when they occur, can be quite fast moving, which means they may affect more than just the initial place under the issued warning.
This is especially true for tornadoes, to which anyone who has lived in "Tornado Alley" will attest as they have seen such storms tear across the landscape at breakneck speeds, wreaking havoc and destruction in their wake.
Sometimes warnings only cover one part of an area, say the eastern section of a given county. And then a second one can crop up that covers a different portion of the same county for a different time frame... So more people affected!
The sheer numbers are what matter here. Television stations want to keep people safe, so even if your favorite show is being cut off by the weather alerts, it's still a heads up, especially in smaller markets that cover a "small" area. Why? Because of the size of the area, you're more likely to be affected by the same situation.
And in truth, the Shenandoah Valley is not that big.
In order to get the relevant information out in a timely fashion, news outlets are using numerous resources ranging from cut-ins on air to text alerts to statuses on Facebook.
For the text messages, a person can sometimes sign up to get alerts for just a specific place, say the county in which that person lives. But for the on-air and online stuff, they can't be that specific.
So if I put up a marquee on the Website, a Desktop Alert crawl or a status on Facebook announcing a weather alert, everyone is going to see the same message no matter where they are. I can't assign such a thing to only show itself to people living in a certain area or using a certain IP address.
On top of that, weather situations sometimes change so quickly, no one person can keep up. On those kinds of days, I will often put up a message saying, "Tune in for information as it becomes available" rather than try to update a marquee or status with every change...
Even I know seeing a ton of similar messages gets irritating, so I try and keep such messages to a minimum if I can... Though I've gotten in trouble for both sending out too many and sending out too few... If that makes any sense.
One the one hand, some people appreciate it and the higher-ups encourage frequent messages to the viewers. Then you have the people that find it annoying and say they are going to stop watching/reading because of it...
Caught between the viewers/readers and the boss. Never a fun position in which to find yourself. And so the fulcrum continues its endless dance to find balance...
The weather is always changing, as any meteorologist will tell you. You don't like the weather right now? Out in Columbia, Missouri, people say just wait a few minutes because it'll change.
And news people like me can only try to keep up. I'm no Data! Nor am I Watson. (Not even Sherlock's companion...) So I'm along for the ride just as much as anyone else in the community.
We want to help people know what's coming and how they can protect themselves from a potentially dangerous situation. And we will use every resource at our disposal to do so.
So keep a sailor's weather eye to the sky and an emergency TV or radio nearby!
Monday, March 14, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Oh the Marvelous, Myriad Morass of Malaprops!
Sometimes they are funny, sometimes they are just dumbfounding. But these mistakes, if you catch them, might just strike one of those chords.
And no, I'm not pulling a V with that title. (By the way, I'm also not referencing the weird TV series about the aliens with this comment. It's from a comic that was made into a movie in 2006.)
But first, you might be wondering what exactly a malapropism is. Well, there are two ways to find out. You can go read the play "The Rivals" by Richard Sheridan and intuit it from the text, or you can just look it up, which isn't as much fun.
In the end, a malapropism happens when a person says or writes a word correctly but uses it in the wrong context. My copy of the "Webster Contemporary Dictionary" says a malapropism is "an absurd misuse of words that sound somewhat alike."
One of my favorites from the play will always be the "allegory on the banks of the Nile." Though being a "progeny of learning" is something else entirely, and you had better watch out for those "contagious countries" in Europe.
By the way, "The Rivals" isn't a new play by any means. It was written in the 18th century. I believe it was first performed in the mid-1770s.
On a personal note, I had the pleasure of playing this role in high school, in 1999.*
In an earlier post, I mentioned President "Back" Obama and all the things we take for "granite."
One word: Oops.
So if the number of traffic "fatties" is going down, someone is graduating with a "bachelorette" degree, a teenager has been arrested and charged with "passion" of a controlled substance, or you ask for forgiveness saying you will go "flatulate" yourself... Well I think those speak for themselves.
And before you accuse me of making any of those up, I have to say no, I'm not. Every single one of those is a malapropism I have seen or heard. And they are only a few, choice picks, of the mass of such mistakes I have seen.
These may seem like fairly obvious mistakes, but, as I stated in that aforementioned earlier post, you won't catch them unless you proofread. And even then, some might get through.
Still, even in a potentially serious situation, you can find a moment of hilarity. For instance, near the beginning of the H1N1 influenza pandemic, my mother and I accompanied my father to the emergency room after he had fallen one night. While there, I noticed a sign posted on one of the cabinets about hand washing when entering and "existing" a room.
I would certainly hope a person would be existing when entering such a place. And remaining that way upon exiting would be a plus.
Especially for all those drug "attics" who just have to get their fix, ranging from oxycodone to "plackebos." I couldn't figure out any other way to write that one to show how the person mispronounced it...
Enough with the examples for while.
Even though these mistakes can be funny, just like bad writing and grammar, they reduce the credibility of the writer. That is if a reader even notices the mistake.
What makes malapropisms so very tricky is the simple fact that the word IS similar even though it's incorrect. Take the "bachelorette" degree for example. The correct word would be baccalaureate or maybe bachelor's. But if you weren't sure how to spell the correct word, you might take a guess and then use spell check. That might bring up the other, like the horror story I was once heard about a graduate student writing his thesis on Madame "Ovary."
I've mentioned before that sometimes my brain will simply not a register a mistake because to me, it looks correct. But then fresh eyes find problems.
For example, in my post about the spelling and grammar problems in text language, I accidentally wrote something was "detonating" rather than denoting. My sister caught that one, so I'm just as likely to make these mistakes as anyone else.
I have never claimed that I don't make mistakes when it comes to my writing, but that's why, in my proofreading post, I talked about having fresh eyes look at something I write to make sure it's correct.
In the same way, other people may be reading so quickly, they will simply breeze over a mistake like a malapropism and their brain will read it the way it's supposed to be.
Just like this line a co-worker sent to me once - "Too bee, ore naught (knot) two bee." All those words are spelled correctly and the line still reads correctly, but if you've ever read "Hamlet," you'll know it's wrong. Heck, even if you haven't read "Hamlet," just about everybody knows that line and would recognize it (even in Klingon).
In the end though, it all comes back to looking over the words on the paper or on the screen.
Probably the biggest problem with malapropisms is the simple fact that, for many, spell check won't catch them.
So back to proofreading.
Please, I don't want to be "scent" to jail for pointing out these glitches, but still, nothing, ABSOLUTELY nothing replaces proofreading as a way to prevent them.
* Funny story related to my playing Mrs. Malaprop... I was out visiting a university in Arizona, auditioning for music and theater. On the flight back to Virginia, my mother was helping me rehearse my lines. She had the script and was giving me my cues. After the plane landed and we were preparing to disembark, I was surprised to get a Standing O from the other passengers, some of whom told us they spent the whole flight listening.
In the end, I didn't attend that university. I got a better offer from the University of Missouri. I happen to be the sixth member of my family to attend Mizzou, and the fourth to graduate.
And no, I'm not pulling a V with that title. (By the way, I'm also not referencing the weird TV series about the aliens with this comment. It's from a comic that was made into a movie in 2006.)
But first, you might be wondering what exactly a malapropism is. Well, there are two ways to find out. You can go read the play "The Rivals" by Richard Sheridan and intuit it from the text, or you can just look it up, which isn't as much fun.
In the end, a malapropism happens when a person says or writes a word correctly but uses it in the wrong context. My copy of the "Webster Contemporary Dictionary" says a malapropism is "an absurd misuse of words that sound somewhat alike."
One of my favorites from the play will always be the "allegory on the banks of the Nile." Though being a "progeny of learning" is something else entirely, and you had better watch out for those "contagious countries" in Europe.
By the way, "The Rivals" isn't a new play by any means. It was written in the 18th century. I believe it was first performed in the mid-1770s.
On a personal note, I had the pleasure of playing this role in high school, in 1999.*
In an earlier post, I mentioned President "Back" Obama and all the things we take for "granite."
One word: Oops.
So if the number of traffic "fatties" is going down, someone is graduating with a "bachelorette" degree, a teenager has been arrested and charged with "passion" of a controlled substance, or you ask for forgiveness saying you will go "flatulate" yourself... Well I think those speak for themselves.
And before you accuse me of making any of those up, I have to say no, I'm not. Every single one of those is a malapropism I have seen or heard. And they are only a few, choice picks, of the mass of such mistakes I have seen.
These may seem like fairly obvious mistakes, but, as I stated in that aforementioned earlier post, you won't catch them unless you proofread. And even then, some might get through.
Still, even in a potentially serious situation, you can find a moment of hilarity. For instance, near the beginning of the H1N1 influenza pandemic, my mother and I accompanied my father to the emergency room after he had fallen one night. While there, I noticed a sign posted on one of the cabinets about hand washing when entering and "existing" a room.
I would certainly hope a person would be existing when entering such a place. And remaining that way upon exiting would be a plus.
Especially for all those drug "attics" who just have to get their fix, ranging from oxycodone to "plackebos." I couldn't figure out any other way to write that one to show how the person mispronounced it...
Enough with the examples for while.
Even though these mistakes can be funny, just like bad writing and grammar, they reduce the credibility of the writer. That is if a reader even notices the mistake.
What makes malapropisms so very tricky is the simple fact that the word IS similar even though it's incorrect. Take the "bachelorette" degree for example. The correct word would be baccalaureate or maybe bachelor's. But if you weren't sure how to spell the correct word, you might take a guess and then use spell check. That might bring up the other, like the horror story I was once heard about a graduate student writing his thesis on Madame "Ovary."
I've mentioned before that sometimes my brain will simply not a register a mistake because to me, it looks correct. But then fresh eyes find problems.
For example, in my post about the spelling and grammar problems in text language, I accidentally wrote something was "detonating" rather than denoting. My sister caught that one, so I'm just as likely to make these mistakes as anyone else.
I have never claimed that I don't make mistakes when it comes to my writing, but that's why, in my proofreading post, I talked about having fresh eyes look at something I write to make sure it's correct.
In the same way, other people may be reading so quickly, they will simply breeze over a mistake like a malapropism and their brain will read it the way it's supposed to be.
Just like this line a co-worker sent to me once - "Too bee, ore naught (knot) two bee." All those words are spelled correctly and the line still reads correctly, but if you've ever read "Hamlet," you'll know it's wrong. Heck, even if you haven't read "Hamlet," just about everybody knows that line and would recognize it (even in Klingon).
In the end though, it all comes back to looking over the words on the paper or on the screen.
Probably the biggest problem with malapropisms is the simple fact that, for many, spell check won't catch them.
So back to proofreading.
Please, I don't want to be "scent" to jail for pointing out these glitches, but still, nothing, ABSOLUTELY nothing replaces proofreading as a way to prevent them.
* Funny story related to my playing Mrs. Malaprop... I was out visiting a university in Arizona, auditioning for music and theater. On the flight back to Virginia, my mother was helping me rehearse my lines. She had the script and was giving me my cues. After the plane landed and we were preparing to disembark, I was surprised to get a Standing O from the other passengers, some of whom told us they spent the whole flight listening.
In the end, I didn't attend that university. I got a better offer from the University of Missouri. I happen to be the sixth member of my family to attend Mizzou, and the fourth to graduate.
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Oddities of Inspiration
I recently noticed something about my blog that somewhat displeases me.
My last three posts all say they went up November 1.
The truth is, quite simply, they didn't. Each post went up a couple of weeks apart.
However, I did create multiple posts all on the same day, November 1.
I was inspired by numerous topics on which I felt I might expound. In an attempt to not forget any of them, I created multiple posts with notes in the drafts to remind me of those topics about which I wanted to write.
I would then work on the posts as the thoughts struck me, sometimes very late at night or even hopping out of the shower and grabbing a towel in order to write something down I considered witty or well worded before it flitted from my mind, never to be written...
I have actually done this several times and am currently working on multiple posts that will eventually go up. Unfortunately, they will not truly represent the work that went into them because they will be posted by their creation dates, not their actual posting dates.
Unless someone out there knows a trick around that little problem? If you do, feel free to let me know. I would like to have my posts reflect the actual work they entailed...
As I wrote in my one post, I proofread like crazy. Very rare indeed is it that I put up a post the very day I created it because I want to make sure it reads well, is well written and doesn't contain mistakes if I can avoid them.
I will sometimes spend weeks on a single post, polishing, reworking, editing or just plain rewriting the whole thing.
As a journalist, that isn't always possible, at least not in my particular field. Each day is a new effort with new stories and more issues. You can't sit and work on a single story for days on end, unless it's for a sweeps period. Then you can sometimes work on one story for weeks, but those are not as common and you still have to work around that daily load.
For those who are not in the television field, a Sweeps Period is for the Nielsen Ratings system. Such periods occur four times a year for about a month at a time. During those periods, viewers are polled through various means to see what they are watching and when. Then the TV station gets the crunched numbers from those polls on which the station can then base its advertising fees.
Of course, this is only the most basic explanation of a Sweeps period... You would have to know more about it than I do to go even deeper...
For a news station, these periods mean reporters work on special segments, or even series, of stories that are longer, more in depth and of wider ranging topics than stories seen on the usual day.
It's a bit of a juxtaposition, but as a person of varied interests and just as varied knowledge, I'd like to include, and indulge, that knowledge and my interests in each post if I can.
I'm also a researcher, of a sort. You have to be able to do research to get any sort of post-graduate degree. What that means is I will often look up something to make sure I have it correct.
So whether I'm checking to see if I have something spelled correctly, or I'm making a correct reference to a given work, or I'm looking up a historical/scientific/literary point to support my views, I will take that time and look it up.
So, sorry about the clump posts. I do spend some time on each one. Honor the Muses for their gifts, but beware for they do strike, it seems, in sets.
My last three posts all say they went up November 1.
The truth is, quite simply, they didn't. Each post went up a couple of weeks apart.
However, I did create multiple posts all on the same day, November 1.
I was inspired by numerous topics on which I felt I might expound. In an attempt to not forget any of them, I created multiple posts with notes in the drafts to remind me of those topics about which I wanted to write.
I would then work on the posts as the thoughts struck me, sometimes very late at night or even hopping out of the shower and grabbing a towel in order to write something down I considered witty or well worded before it flitted from my mind, never to be written...
I have actually done this several times and am currently working on multiple posts that will eventually go up. Unfortunately, they will not truly represent the work that went into them because they will be posted by their creation dates, not their actual posting dates.
Unless someone out there knows a trick around that little problem? If you do, feel free to let me know. I would like to have my posts reflect the actual work they entailed...
As I wrote in my one post, I proofread like crazy. Very rare indeed is it that I put up a post the very day I created it because I want to make sure it reads well, is well written and doesn't contain mistakes if I can avoid them.
I will sometimes spend weeks on a single post, polishing, reworking, editing or just plain rewriting the whole thing.
As a journalist, that isn't always possible, at least not in my particular field. Each day is a new effort with new stories and more issues. You can't sit and work on a single story for days on end, unless it's for a sweeps period. Then you can sometimes work on one story for weeks, but those are not as common and you still have to work around that daily load.
For those who are not in the television field, a Sweeps Period is for the Nielsen Ratings system. Such periods occur four times a year for about a month at a time. During those periods, viewers are polled through various means to see what they are watching and when. Then the TV station gets the crunched numbers from those polls on which the station can then base its advertising fees.
Of course, this is only the most basic explanation of a Sweeps period... You would have to know more about it than I do to go even deeper...
For a news station, these periods mean reporters work on special segments, or even series, of stories that are longer, more in depth and of wider ranging topics than stories seen on the usual day.
It's a bit of a juxtaposition, but as a person of varied interests and just as varied knowledge, I'd like to include, and indulge, that knowledge and my interests in each post if I can.
I'm also a researcher, of a sort. You have to be able to do research to get any sort of post-graduate degree. What that means is I will often look up something to make sure I have it correct.
So whether I'm checking to see if I have something spelled correctly, or I'm making a correct reference to a given work, or I'm looking up a historical/scientific/literary point to support my views, I will take that time and look it up.
So, sorry about the clump posts. I do spend some time on each one. Honor the Muses for their gifts, but beware for they do strike, it seems, in sets.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Writing Like a Text
I've talked about quality writing before and I've talked about how texting is not English. In that latter post, I mentioned that I had other reasons for not considering texting to be English.
Now I will address some other such reasons. Specifically the lack of grammar, punctuation and capitalization in most texts.
Unlike proper written English, text language often has no, or minimal, punctuation. If you're lucky, you might see a period, maybe a comma. (Though I do have to concede that most people sending texts do have to deal with a character limit.) Most of the time, none at all. However, the exclamation mark seems to be the most common since people sending texts lean toward the dramatic...
There is a little fluke with some punctuation. Some words that should have apostrophes but don't when used in text language actually do create real words, just with very different meanings. For example - won't and wont. One is saying you will not do something, but the other is something you are inclined to do.
As for grammar, well since that falls into divisions that are specifically denoted by punctuation as well as sentence structure, and you're not likely to see much of that either.
Say I want to explain something to you, but I want to make sure it's clear. Secondary clauses, agreement and more. That means, if I want to mark each aspect of the idea, I have to show you the divides. That is done through my grammar and my punctuation working in conjunction, demonstrating my idea.
The lack of these two items alone makes the style of text language almost too fluid to follow. Most of the time, you have to read the message out loud to even figure out what it's saying.
And it really doesn't help that things are rarely capitalized. Not even I, let alone the beginnings of sentences or proper nouns. It's a lower case blur.
Capital letters can help express importance or recognize the status of something. If I'm saying something about myself or about a well-known landmark, I should denote such things by capitalizing the terms, such as Montmartre, Harrisonburg, United Kingdom, Hans Christian Anderson, Clovis, just to name a few...
On top of that, the sheer oddity of spelling in such messages... Very confusing at times. And there are days when I have absolutely no idea what someone is trying to write.
For example, here's a sample of text language I recently saw - "i neva wuda thought in million years she wud do sumn like dis."
If you say it out loud, you can get most of the message, which translates into "I never would have thought in a millions years she would do something like this."
Neva for never, wuda for would have, sumn for something and dis for this.
It seems rather ironic to me that some of these idiosyncrasies of texting are actually the way people speak these days. It really bugs me when I hear someone say "ax" for "ask." And all the dropped t's and d's. It's mountain, not mounian. Bottle, not bodle.
The hardest word in the English language might be "the" or it might be "lollipop," but "dat" doesn't mean you should become sloppy and not say "that" correctly!
Somewhere running around there's a children's book that says avoid the gonnas and wannas. Well, I'm going to find that one because I want to have other people remember to speak clearly. I think it's called "English Can be Fun" by Herbert Prescott.
Ever tried to read one of the poems from "Oh Say Can You Say?" by Dr. Seuss out loud? Now that's a test students should take! Not the Standards of Learning exams that seem to leave every child behind and promote mediocrity.
Enunciate! As I often yell at my nephew who has a nasty tendency to mumble and slur his words so badly I have absolutely no idea what is coming out of his mouth...
So from spoken to written. The beginnings of modern text language appear to have developed in sloppy speaking. As Henry Higgins once said, "In America, they haven't used [English] for years."
How about this one - its messed up that sum ppl miss use stuff like this
OK, that one reads "It's messed up that some people misuse stuff like this." Not that tricky a one until you get to the "miss use."
How about this one - "id advise u to get to no ur son a lil better cause from the sound of it u dont no anything about him."
Lots of common forms of text language there. Translation - "I'd advise you to get to know your son a little better because from the sound of it you don't know anything about him."
Here's a nice long one that might mess you up - i cant belive all they gave tht pos is 6 years he should have gt mre oh well hopfully hell get real aquanted with a big black guy n prison he better hope i dnt c him cause we gta talk if i were him id hide cause i gt people in all the correctional facilitys in virginia.... o n sissy pull the wool out from your eyes he was the CROWED he was the influence he gt all those people to follow him.... n hell most of these people were inosent
Translation - "I can't believe all they gave that piece of shit is six years. He should have got more. Oh well, hopefully he'll get real acquainted with a big black guy in prison. He better hope I don't see him because we got to talk. If I were him, I'd hide because I got people in all the correctional facilities in Virginia. Oh, and sissy, pull the wool out from your eyes. He was the crowd, he was the influence. He got all those people to follow him. And hell, most of these people were innocent."
Took a couple of times reading that one to make sense of the mangle. And that specific example is very good to see the degeneration of spelling. Inosent for innocent. Aquanted for acquainted.
Makes me think of that old e-mail joke where the Germans wanted everyone to speak German, not English, but when the other countries wouldn't agree to it, the Germans insisted on various changes and English almost got changed back its Germanic roots in the end anyway... I still have a copy of that e-mail somewhere. I shall have to find it...
But I specifically remember things like getting rid of the hard "c" and replacing it with a "k." Or getting rid of the silent e... Most of the rule changes affected writing... There were numerous examples in the original message. I just can't remember all of them.
And exclaiming "Y'all come back, y'hear!" Or asking someone "D'jeat?" (If you don't know what that second one is, it's "did you eat?")
"Enuf already!!" Are we truly becoming so lazy that we can't even speak, or write, in such a way as to make ourselves clearly and easily understood?
Maybe I'm just plain old-fashioned, but I find the degradation of English to be a disturbing and disheartening transition...
To put it bluntly, I believe texting is becoming the English version of Pig Latin or even Creole.
I'd be most "gr8ful" to never have to see such language again (license plates notwithstanding). People really "shud chek" what they're writing and saying because who knows "whut" you'll see or hear next.
Posting Date - January 30, 2011
Now I will address some other such reasons. Specifically the lack of grammar, punctuation and capitalization in most texts.
Unlike proper written English, text language often has no, or minimal, punctuation. If you're lucky, you might see a period, maybe a comma. (Though I do have to concede that most people sending texts do have to deal with a character limit.) Most of the time, none at all. However, the exclamation mark seems to be the most common since people sending texts lean toward the dramatic...
There is a little fluke with some punctuation. Some words that should have apostrophes but don't when used in text language actually do create real words, just with very different meanings. For example - won't and wont. One is saying you will not do something, but the other is something you are inclined to do.
As for grammar, well since that falls into divisions that are specifically denoted by punctuation as well as sentence structure, and you're not likely to see much of that either.
Say I want to explain something to you, but I want to make sure it's clear. Secondary clauses, agreement and more. That means, if I want to mark each aspect of the idea, I have to show you the divides. That is done through my grammar and my punctuation working in conjunction, demonstrating my idea.
The lack of these two items alone makes the style of text language almost too fluid to follow. Most of the time, you have to read the message out loud to even figure out what it's saying.
And it really doesn't help that things are rarely capitalized. Not even I, let alone the beginnings of sentences or proper nouns. It's a lower case blur.
Capital letters can help express importance or recognize the status of something. If I'm saying something about myself or about a well-known landmark, I should denote such things by capitalizing the terms, such as Montmartre, Harrisonburg, United Kingdom, Hans Christian Anderson, Clovis, just to name a few...
On top of that, the sheer oddity of spelling in such messages... Very confusing at times. And there are days when I have absolutely no idea what someone is trying to write.
For example, here's a sample of text language I recently saw - "i neva wuda thought in million years she wud do sumn like dis."
If you say it out loud, you can get most of the message, which translates into "I never would have thought in a millions years she would do something like this."
Neva for never, wuda for would have, sumn for something and dis for this.
It seems rather ironic to me that some of these idiosyncrasies of texting are actually the way people speak these days. It really bugs me when I hear someone say "ax" for "ask." And all the dropped t's and d's. It's mountain, not mounian. Bottle, not bodle.
The hardest word in the English language might be "the" or it might be "lollipop," but "dat" doesn't mean you should become sloppy and not say "that" correctly!
Somewhere running around there's a children's book that says avoid the gonnas and wannas. Well, I'm going to find that one because I want to have other people remember to speak clearly. I think it's called "English Can be Fun" by Herbert Prescott.
Ever tried to read one of the poems from "Oh Say Can You Say?" by Dr. Seuss out loud? Now that's a test students should take! Not the Standards of Learning exams that seem to leave every child behind and promote mediocrity.
Enunciate! As I often yell at my nephew who has a nasty tendency to mumble and slur his words so badly I have absolutely no idea what is coming out of his mouth...
So from spoken to written. The beginnings of modern text language appear to have developed in sloppy speaking. As Henry Higgins once said, "In America, they haven't used [English] for years."
How about this one - its messed up that sum ppl miss use stuff like this
OK, that one reads "It's messed up that some people misuse stuff like this." Not that tricky a one until you get to the "miss use."
How about this one - "id advise u to get to no ur son a lil better cause from the sound of it u dont no anything about him."
Lots of common forms of text language there. Translation - "I'd advise you to get to know your son a little better because from the sound of it you don't know anything about him."
Here's a nice long one that might mess you up - i cant belive all they gave tht pos is 6 years he should have gt mre oh well hopfully hell get real aquanted with a big black guy n prison he better hope i dnt c him cause we gta talk if i were him id hide cause i gt people in all the correctional facilitys in virginia.... o n sissy pull the wool out from your eyes he was the CROWED he was the influence he gt all those people to follow him.... n hell most of these people were inosent
Translation - "I can't believe all they gave that piece of shit is six years. He should have got more. Oh well, hopefully he'll get real acquainted with a big black guy in prison. He better hope I don't see him because we got to talk. If I were him, I'd hide because I got people in all the correctional facilities in Virginia. Oh, and sissy, pull the wool out from your eyes. He was the crowd, he was the influence. He got all those people to follow him. And hell, most of these people were innocent."
Took a couple of times reading that one to make sense of the mangle. And that specific example is very good to see the degeneration of spelling. Inosent for innocent. Aquanted for acquainted.
Makes me think of that old e-mail joke where the Germans wanted everyone to speak German, not English, but when the other countries wouldn't agree to it, the Germans insisted on various changes and English almost got changed back its Germanic roots in the end anyway... I still have a copy of that e-mail somewhere. I shall have to find it...
But I specifically remember things like getting rid of the hard "c" and replacing it with a "k." Or getting rid of the silent e... Most of the rule changes affected writing... There were numerous examples in the original message. I just can't remember all of them.
And exclaiming "Y'all come back, y'hear!" Or asking someone "D'jeat?" (If you don't know what that second one is, it's "did you eat?")
"Enuf already!!" Are we truly becoming so lazy that we can't even speak, or write, in such a way as to make ourselves clearly and easily understood?
Maybe I'm just plain old-fashioned, but I find the degradation of English to be a disturbing and disheartening transition...
To put it bluntly, I believe texting is becoming the English version of Pig Latin or even Creole.
I'd be most "gr8ful" to never have to see such language again (license plates notwithstanding). People really "shud chek" what they're writing and saying because who knows "whut" you'll see or hear next.
Posting Date - January 30, 2011
Monday, November 1, 2010
Addendum to Benefit or Bane
Very early on, I wrote a post about most news outlets using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Even back then, I had noticed a rather disturbing trend in viewer/reader interaction through such sites.
For me, posting to such a site is to inform and help people. Sometimes it's about a weather alert; sometimes it's an update on a breaking news story; sometimes it's a preview of a story for that evening; sometimes it's asking for viewer opinion on a particular topic.
However, there is a problem. Since these kinds of messages are usually providing information, I personally would appreciate it if viewers/readers would not get nasty in return.
I'm talking about the snarky comments that various viewers post. I know snarky isn't necessarily a negative word. However, since snarky does mean snide remarks, I think there is a chance for a negative connotation.
To be snide is to make a comment expressing contempt, to be derisive of something. Neither of these is a positive connotation. So when someone gets snarky on a social networking site, those comments also tend to be negative.
To put it in colloquial terms, to be snarky is to cop an attitude or to give someone lip.
Some viewers are rather predictable in posting their hate and prejudice. To me, that makes them simply look like fools. They rant and rave and show they are too ignorant to look beyond themselves to the larger picture.
Some attack the news organization, screaming obscenities. In their own way, such postings are just another form of ranting, no matter the topic, which again reduces the mentality of the poster.
Some appear to attempt a reasonable request, such as asking for information regarding something they think the news organization should cover, but the person's manner of going about it is not a nice request at all.
For example, one day, a post was put up with a question on some topic to which the first response was someone screaming about why the news organization wasn't covering a missing girl in a nearby city.
Well, the organization called on that possible missing child, because that isn't something you leave hanging. Turns out it was a hoax message from another country. A response to that line was posted. To which the original screamer said it should still be in the news. Luckily, another viewer posted a reply saying the local organization doesn't often do international news.
That's not to say that all such posters are incorrect. Some do actually post relevant and real events. Like the popular local teacher killed by her husband who then killed himself. Or one of the many nasty crashes on the interstate that send people to the hospital. Or the various roads and intersections local people consider dangerous... To those people, Facebook and Twitter are the Benefit because they are trying to get valid information out.
Those are just a few examples of many, but many of the posts have been along the same lines: they accuse, claiming the news outlet isn't doing its job. Thus, they are the Bane. But when the person in charge responds, they don't want to hear the answers.
Like people who have their noses glued to a Bible. Their minds are already made up, don't confuse them with facts.
You might find that an odd comment coming from someone like me, but considering how many times I've been told I am going to burn because I don't go to a particular church or genuflect a certain way... Well, I usually just tell those people to go away. Just like the ranters posting on the social networking sites, these cannot see beyond their own nares.
They rant, they scream, they rave and they only make themselves look idiotic.
You may have seen some such comments in the past. I read far too many condemning such things as homosexuality; gay marriage; the don't ask, don't tell policy; even Islam. It may seem strange to include that last one is such a list, but because of the controversial nature of the belief system in recent years, it still fits.
Especially when it comes to some of the commentary that exists. Due to the fact that it is a different belief system, there are many out there who attack it just because it is different, even though it is related to the two other most commons forms of beliefs today: Judaism and Christianity (all three are monotheistic, beginning with the oldest - Judaism, and ending with the youngest - Islam). Some posters scream about false prophets (or in some instances, false "profits"), etc.
Truly small-minded and ridiculous.
Far too often, I have seen comments that are based solely on the biases of religious texts. While some such texts can be quite beautiful (take the "Bhagavad Gita" for instance, which is some absolutely gorgeous poetry in my opinion), to base every single opinion a person opines on one is foolhardy. A religious text is not the be all and end all. There is an alpha and omega, but as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand that totality. Therefore, any religious text is of necessity incomplete.
Thus, such comments, especially when they get snarky and attack people, are also incomplete, leaving out vast possibilities and potential options.
In any event, to respond with nasty, demeaning, even inappropriate comments does NOT make the news organization look foolish. It makes the poster look that way.
I myself bite my tongue more often than you can imagine. When I read hate-filled, ignorant commentary, it does make my blood boil. I'm only a human after all, even if my thinking is a bit on the odd side. But more often than not, I do not vent my irritation by posting a reply to a negative comment. (Go back to the original "Benefit or Bane" to read about my own foibles when it comes to venting on Facebook.)
So when you post to a news organization, please refrain from making negative comments. Like the old rule your parents probably told you, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. Or at least make your "criticism" constructive, not destructive.
Posted in December 2010.
For me, posting to such a site is to inform and help people. Sometimes it's about a weather alert; sometimes it's an update on a breaking news story; sometimes it's a preview of a story for that evening; sometimes it's asking for viewer opinion on a particular topic.
However, there is a problem. Since these kinds of messages are usually providing information, I personally would appreciate it if viewers/readers would not get nasty in return.
I'm talking about the snarky comments that various viewers post. I know snarky isn't necessarily a negative word. However, since snarky does mean snide remarks, I think there is a chance for a negative connotation.
To be snide is to make a comment expressing contempt, to be derisive of something. Neither of these is a positive connotation. So when someone gets snarky on a social networking site, those comments also tend to be negative.
To put it in colloquial terms, to be snarky is to cop an attitude or to give someone lip.
Some viewers are rather predictable in posting their hate and prejudice. To me, that makes them simply look like fools. They rant and rave and show they are too ignorant to look beyond themselves to the larger picture.
Some attack the news organization, screaming obscenities. In their own way, such postings are just another form of ranting, no matter the topic, which again reduces the mentality of the poster.
Some appear to attempt a reasonable request, such as asking for information regarding something they think the news organization should cover, but the person's manner of going about it is not a nice request at all.
For example, one day, a post was put up with a question on some topic to which the first response was someone screaming about why the news organization wasn't covering a missing girl in a nearby city.
Well, the organization called on that possible missing child, because that isn't something you leave hanging. Turns out it was a hoax message from another country. A response to that line was posted. To which the original screamer said it should still be in the news. Luckily, another viewer posted a reply saying the local organization doesn't often do international news.
That's not to say that all such posters are incorrect. Some do actually post relevant and real events. Like the popular local teacher killed by her husband who then killed himself. Or one of the many nasty crashes on the interstate that send people to the hospital. Or the various roads and intersections local people consider dangerous... To those people, Facebook and Twitter are the Benefit because they are trying to get valid information out.
Those are just a few examples of many, but many of the posts have been along the same lines: they accuse, claiming the news outlet isn't doing its job. Thus, they are the Bane. But when the person in charge responds, they don't want to hear the answers.
Like people who have their noses glued to a Bible. Their minds are already made up, don't confuse them with facts.
You might find that an odd comment coming from someone like me, but considering how many times I've been told I am going to burn because I don't go to a particular church or genuflect a certain way... Well, I usually just tell those people to go away. Just like the ranters posting on the social networking sites, these cannot see beyond their own nares.
They rant, they scream, they rave and they only make themselves look idiotic.
You may have seen some such comments in the past. I read far too many condemning such things as homosexuality; gay marriage; the don't ask, don't tell policy; even Islam. It may seem strange to include that last one is such a list, but because of the controversial nature of the belief system in recent years, it still fits.
Especially when it comes to some of the commentary that exists. Due to the fact that it is a different belief system, there are many out there who attack it just because it is different, even though it is related to the two other most commons forms of beliefs today: Judaism and Christianity (all three are monotheistic, beginning with the oldest - Judaism, and ending with the youngest - Islam). Some posters scream about false prophets (or in some instances, false "profits"), etc.
Truly small-minded and ridiculous.
Far too often, I have seen comments that are based solely on the biases of religious texts. While some such texts can be quite beautiful (take the "Bhagavad Gita" for instance, which is some absolutely gorgeous poetry in my opinion), to base every single opinion a person opines on one is foolhardy. A religious text is not the be all and end all. There is an alpha and omega, but as humans, we do not have the capacity to understand that totality. Therefore, any religious text is of necessity incomplete.
Thus, such comments, especially when they get snarky and attack people, are also incomplete, leaving out vast possibilities and potential options.
In any event, to respond with nasty, demeaning, even inappropriate comments does NOT make the news organization look foolish. It makes the poster look that way.
I myself bite my tongue more often than you can imagine. When I read hate-filled, ignorant commentary, it does make my blood boil. I'm only a human after all, even if my thinking is a bit on the odd side. But more often than not, I do not vent my irritation by posting a reply to a negative comment. (Go back to the original "Benefit or Bane" to read about my own foibles when it comes to venting on Facebook.)
So when you post to a news organization, please refrain from making negative comments. Like the old rule your parents probably told you, if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything. Or at least make your "criticism" constructive, not destructive.
Posted in December 2010.
Text Language Is NOT English!
OMG 4COL! There are times, if someone sends me a text on my phone or an instant messenger, I have to look up what that person has actually written. For instance, you probably know what the OMG stands for, but you might not know what 4COL is. I certainly wouldn't know that stands for "for crying out loud."
I did have to look that one up and there are numerous sites out there where you can learn what various text-language messages mean. Just Google it!
But I'm not kidding when I say those kinds of message are not English! Why? Well there can be several reasons, not the least of which is that not everyone knows what it means. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
Anybody got some translator microbes? (And if you get that reference, you're a scifi geek just like me!)
I was recently at a function where I ran into an old teacher I know and a person I went to school with who has since been a teacher. We got to talking about language and the changes we have seen in the last several years.
I mentioned a story I have heard about, though not independently confirmed, that some college-level writing classes have begun accepting papers with text language. Both of the people to whom I was speaking told me they had seen such papers in the classes they taught at the high school level. One even mentioned a student protesting a poor grade on such a paper, saying something about, "Well I could do that last year."
There are days I simply know I'm not cut out to be a teacher. I get frustrated too easily and these kinds of things... Splinter under your nail, anybody? Or how about fingernails on a chalkboard? Not that a lot younger people would know what a chalkboard is anymore, or what fingernails sound like when dragged down one. *wince*
If I were a teacher and was handed a paper containing such text-language writing, I probably wouldn't even read it. It would be handed back to the student with a big, red letter on it. And no, that would not be an A. Nor am I referencing a well known book by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I think, in some ways, this sort of devolution of written language is why I see some of the mistakes I wrote about in my last post. People have become accustomed to seeing acronyms for phrases, such as LOL (laugh out loud) or TTYL (talk to you later).
Why should people bother knowing how to properly write something when they can just fill in the blanks with "WIBNI people would STFU?" (In case you need a translation, that says "Wouldn't it be nice if people would shut the 'freak' up?") Someone's probably thinking that about me right now. But you know what? Since this is MY blog, I can say almost anything I want, within reason. If they don't want to see it, they don't have to read.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of bloggers leave their reason at the door to the room where they have their computer. Just saying, I have seen some really out there things in blogs that make me wonder if some people have any gray matter. Oh well!
Back on topic...
I have to admit I was rather dismayed, though not surprised, to learn that sexual language has also cropped up in these shorthands. For example, I saw LH6 on one of the many "dictionaries" of text language I found online. That apparently stands for "let's have sex." No, I'm not propositioning you... Just giving an example.
With the recent news regarding sexting and child pornography, I have to wonder if officers have this kind of "dictionary" in which to look up some of these things. Otherwise, how in the world do they know if some of what they see actually falls under the umbrella of sexting?
Now that sexting has become a serious crime, even if it involves two minors, it must be an issue to address. And again, I'm not sure a lot of older people, even though I don't quite fall into that range yet, would understand the short-hand messages that fly between the phones, smart phones and computers to which the younger generations have become so attached.
At any rate, because these messages have to be translated, whether by looking up the integral parts or by someone who actually "speaks the language," I do not consider text language to be English.
Perhaps it is growing into a separate dialect. But it is no longer the language that is supposedly taught in schools.
I have at least two other reasons I don't consider this kind of writing to be English that easily come to mind. However, due to the length of this post, I will discuss both of them (as they are related) in a future post.
In case you are interested - Here are some links to online "text dictionaries" I found...
Text Message Abbreviations from Webopedia
"The Largest List of Text Message Shorthand (IM, SMS) and Internet Acronyms" from NetLingo
Translate Your Txt Messages from Lingo2Word
There's even some for the various "smileys" you can use.
I'm sure there are more, but why try and list all of them? Like the Internet itself, this "language" is in an almost constant state of flux. That means the definitions might change over time...
Posted Thanksgiving weekend 2010.
I did have to look that one up and there are numerous sites out there where you can learn what various text-language messages mean. Just Google it!
But I'm not kidding when I say those kinds of message are not English! Why? Well there can be several reasons, not the least of which is that not everyone knows what it means. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
Anybody got some translator microbes? (And if you get that reference, you're a scifi geek just like me!)
I was recently at a function where I ran into an old teacher I know and a person I went to school with who has since been a teacher. We got to talking about language and the changes we have seen in the last several years.
I mentioned a story I have heard about, though not independently confirmed, that some college-level writing classes have begun accepting papers with text language. Both of the people to whom I was speaking told me they had seen such papers in the classes they taught at the high school level. One even mentioned a student protesting a poor grade on such a paper, saying something about, "Well I could do that last year."
There are days I simply know I'm not cut out to be a teacher. I get frustrated too easily and these kinds of things... Splinter under your nail, anybody? Or how about fingernails on a chalkboard? Not that a lot younger people would know what a chalkboard is anymore, or what fingernails sound like when dragged down one. *wince*
If I were a teacher and was handed a paper containing such text-language writing, I probably wouldn't even read it. It would be handed back to the student with a big, red letter on it. And no, that would not be an A. Nor am I referencing a well known book by Nathaniel Hawthorne.
I think, in some ways, this sort of devolution of written language is why I see some of the mistakes I wrote about in my last post. People have become accustomed to seeing acronyms for phrases, such as LOL (laugh out loud) or TTYL (talk to you later).
Why should people bother knowing how to properly write something when they can just fill in the blanks with "WIBNI people would STFU?" (In case you need a translation, that says "Wouldn't it be nice if people would shut the 'freak' up?") Someone's probably thinking that about me right now. But you know what? Since this is MY blog, I can say almost anything I want, within reason. If they don't want to see it, they don't have to read.
Unfortunately, I think a lot of bloggers leave their reason at the door to the room where they have their computer. Just saying, I have seen some really out there things in blogs that make me wonder if some people have any gray matter. Oh well!
Back on topic...
I have to admit I was rather dismayed, though not surprised, to learn that sexual language has also cropped up in these shorthands. For example, I saw LH6 on one of the many "dictionaries" of text language I found online. That apparently stands for "let's have sex." No, I'm not propositioning you... Just giving an example.
With the recent news regarding sexting and child pornography, I have to wonder if officers have this kind of "dictionary" in which to look up some of these things. Otherwise, how in the world do they know if some of what they see actually falls under the umbrella of sexting?
Now that sexting has become a serious crime, even if it involves two minors, it must be an issue to address. And again, I'm not sure a lot of older people, even though I don't quite fall into that range yet, would understand the short-hand messages that fly between the phones, smart phones and computers to which the younger generations have become so attached.
At any rate, because these messages have to be translated, whether by looking up the integral parts or by someone who actually "speaks the language," I do not consider text language to be English.
Perhaps it is growing into a separate dialect. But it is no longer the language that is supposedly taught in schools.
I have at least two other reasons I don't consider this kind of writing to be English that easily come to mind. However, due to the length of this post, I will discuss both of them (as they are related) in a future post.
In case you are interested - Here are some links to online "text dictionaries" I found...
Text Message Abbreviations from Webopedia
"The Largest List of Text Message Shorthand (IM, SMS) and Internet Acronyms" from NetLingo
Translate Your Txt Messages from Lingo2Word
There's even some for the various "smileys" you can use.
I'm sure there are more, but why try and list all of them? Like the Internet itself, this "language" is in an almost constant state of flux. That means the definitions might change over time...
Posted Thanksgiving weekend 2010.
Quality Writing...
If there is one thing that bothers me about the dependence on technology so many people have developed, it is the simple fact that spell check DOESN'T catch everything! In fact, it'll sometimes mess you up worse. There is simply NO replacement for actual proofreading.
Example: I saw a story at one point where the author was talking about President "Back" Obama. Wait a minute... I think we're missing a syllable. So spell check would say the word was correct... And that's the problem.
Mrs. Malaprop is probably flipping her pages, going nuts for some of the things that slip by because people are relying too much on spell check. "For all the things we take for granite," READ WHAT YOU WRITE! (And that is an actual malapropism I have seen. Not the funniest, but certainly up there!)
I'm sure it often looks like I've made a mistake, but I try very hard not to do so. What's the main thing I do? I proofread like crazy!! Two, three, four times... I will proofread and proofread until I have whatever it is almost memorized! And then you know what? If I can, I have somebody ELSE look at what I've written. Why? Because fresh eyes will catch mistakes mine won't see!
I've had it happen many times, more times than I care to count, that I've written something that looks fine to me. My brain is reading whatever I wrote as correct. But someone else takes a look at it, and they find spelling issues, transposed letters, dropped letters and other mistakes. I wasn't seeing those mistakes because, as far as my brain was concerned, those mistakes didn't exist.
Even in writing this entry, I'm proofreading as I go and finding several places where I left out a word. Maybe my brain is going faster than my fingers or maybe I'm simply not actually writing the words but my brain thinks I am. How confusing can you get? That's a little confusing even for me, and it's coming from me!
A lot of the time, I'll be using a writing style that might seem a little archaic or words that aren't used everyday. That could simply be, since my mother was an English teacher, I was taught a more strict, regimented writing style. But the lackadaisical attitude I have seen from so many people when it comes to their writing, it really makes me wonder what people are being taught now.
What is the basic structure of a sentence? Subject, Verb, Object. Something does something to something. Then you get fancy and add extra clauses, adjectives, adverbs, etc. But you have to have those three elements first. THEN get fancy.
The basics do matter, especially in print-type media, which a lot of the Internet still is despite all the fancy JAVA, ASP, PHP and everything else you can use.
Even in just writing a basic paper, watch what you are writing.
Some programs do have a "grammar check" in them, but I don't trust it because it seems to underline the strangest things. However, a grammar point of contention with me is AGREEMENT. An organization, like a hospital or a single business, is an IT! That means ITS business, not THEIR business does something. The only time a writer should use their for an organization is if that writer is talking about more than one organization.
In mentioning "their," I can't help but cringe at the thought of homonyms. PAINFUL! There are so many words that sound alike but are spelled differently, and mostly mean different things. For example, probably two of the most common homonym mistakes I see involve their, they're and there or your, you're and yore (add that last one if you really want to screw with somebody's head. It has amazed me how many people don't know what that third one means).
Sometimes it's just a missed letter... Sometimes it's the completely wrong word in the given context of the specific sentence. Those details can make you, as a writer, look smart or ignorant.
Here's one for you - What are the five ways to say "ough?" "Ow" (bough), "off" (cough), "oh" (dough), "oo" (through) and "uff" (rough). This one works best if you say it aloud... Otherwise the mistake with "The dough is rising" when you say dough like cough doesn't quite make sense. My mother says this was originally in "The Reader's Digest" many years ago... Something about a recent immigrant on a subway with a bowl of dough. Don't ask me because I have no idea why in the world someone would be on a subway with a bowl of fresh dough...
There are so many potential mistakes, most of which can be caught by proofreading. It also helps to know basic written English such as how to write numbers, subject-verb agreement, subject-object agreement and so much more. To me, it seems as though English, as a written language, is dying. Otherwise, what is Ebonics?
Yes, spell or grammar check CAN help, BUT they CANNOT do it all. Like the above examples of Back Obama and taking things for granite... The words are spelled correctly, but they are incorrect in that usage! If you simply take an extra minute and reread what you have written, you'll avoid a lot of potential problems.
Learning any written form of language is hard. Being a person who is bi-lingual, I can say that and be honest. However, English is a screwy language. And while every language has its foibles, simply paying attention will help most people avoid pitfalls.
Don't rely solely on spell check or grammar check. You are your own spell check and grammar check. You, who ever you are, as a writer, should be fixing those mistakes.
Example: I saw a story at one point where the author was talking about President "Back" Obama. Wait a minute... I think we're missing a syllable. So spell check would say the word was correct... And that's the problem.
Mrs. Malaprop is probably flipping her pages, going nuts for some of the things that slip by because people are relying too much on spell check. "For all the things we take for granite," READ WHAT YOU WRITE! (And that is an actual malapropism I have seen. Not the funniest, but certainly up there!)
I'm sure it often looks like I've made a mistake, but I try very hard not to do so. What's the main thing I do? I proofread like crazy!! Two, three, four times... I will proofread and proofread until I have whatever it is almost memorized! And then you know what? If I can, I have somebody ELSE look at what I've written. Why? Because fresh eyes will catch mistakes mine won't see!
I've had it happen many times, more times than I care to count, that I've written something that looks fine to me. My brain is reading whatever I wrote as correct. But someone else takes a look at it, and they find spelling issues, transposed letters, dropped letters and other mistakes. I wasn't seeing those mistakes because, as far as my brain was concerned, those mistakes didn't exist.
Even in writing this entry, I'm proofreading as I go and finding several places where I left out a word. Maybe my brain is going faster than my fingers or maybe I'm simply not actually writing the words but my brain thinks I am. How confusing can you get? That's a little confusing even for me, and it's coming from me!
A lot of the time, I'll be using a writing style that might seem a little archaic or words that aren't used everyday. That could simply be, since my mother was an English teacher, I was taught a more strict, regimented writing style. But the lackadaisical attitude I have seen from so many people when it comes to their writing, it really makes me wonder what people are being taught now.
What is the basic structure of a sentence? Subject, Verb, Object. Something does something to something. Then you get fancy and add extra clauses, adjectives, adverbs, etc. But you have to have those three elements first. THEN get fancy.
The basics do matter, especially in print-type media, which a lot of the Internet still is despite all the fancy JAVA, ASP, PHP and everything else you can use.
Even in just writing a basic paper, watch what you are writing.
Some programs do have a "grammar check" in them, but I don't trust it because it seems to underline the strangest things. However, a grammar point of contention with me is AGREEMENT. An organization, like a hospital or a single business, is an IT! That means ITS business, not THEIR business does something. The only time a writer should use their for an organization is if that writer is talking about more than one organization.
In mentioning "their," I can't help but cringe at the thought of homonyms. PAINFUL! There are so many words that sound alike but are spelled differently, and mostly mean different things. For example, probably two of the most common homonym mistakes I see involve their, they're and there or your, you're and yore (add that last one if you really want to screw with somebody's head. It has amazed me how many people don't know what that third one means).
Sometimes it's just a missed letter... Sometimes it's the completely wrong word in the given context of the specific sentence. Those details can make you, as a writer, look smart or ignorant.
Here's one for you - What are the five ways to say "ough?" "Ow" (bough), "off" (cough), "oh" (dough), "oo" (through) and "uff" (rough). This one works best if you say it aloud... Otherwise the mistake with "The dough is rising" when you say dough like cough doesn't quite make sense. My mother says this was originally in "The Reader's Digest" many years ago... Something about a recent immigrant on a subway with a bowl of dough. Don't ask me because I have no idea why in the world someone would be on a subway with a bowl of fresh dough...
There are so many potential mistakes, most of which can be caught by proofreading. It also helps to know basic written English such as how to write numbers, subject-verb agreement, subject-object agreement and so much more. To me, it seems as though English, as a written language, is dying. Otherwise, what is Ebonics?
Yes, spell or grammar check CAN help, BUT they CANNOT do it all. Like the above examples of Back Obama and taking things for granite... The words are spelled correctly, but they are incorrect in that usage! If you simply take an extra minute and reread what you have written, you'll avoid a lot of potential problems.
Learning any written form of language is hard. Being a person who is bi-lingual, I can say that and be honest. However, English is a screwy language. And while every language has its foibles, simply paying attention will help most people avoid pitfalls.
Don't rely solely on spell check or grammar check. You are your own spell check and grammar check. You, who ever you are, as a writer, should be fixing those mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
