Hard News: A Full Sense of Nationhood
509 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
Just to be clear, I'll repeat:
You wanting something from me puts no onus on me whatsoever.
That's one way to see it. Another is that someone with real insight, wisdom and/or originality might be ignored 'cause they split their infinitives...
-
David, it's not always the writer who wants something. I'd have thought that was obvious. When I read something I want to understand it. I'm not sitting there petulantly demanding that the writer pour the knowledge into my head. Like when I go to a beach and see a sign that says "Be ware of the sharks", the onus is on me to realize that the sign is not telling me to offer myself to the sharks as a tradeable item. Or if I want to buy a product and the manual is in Chinglish, that's not enough reason on it's own to say that there is no manual.
Gio, if you are not doing it, then what the hell are you arguing with me about?
-
That's one way to see it. Another is that someone with real insight, wisdom and/or originality might be ignored 'cause they split their infinitives...
Too bad nobody here is arguing against that position, ay?
And actually, the split infinitive thing is a myth. Take it away, Mr. Pinker:
Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.
Among these fetishes is the prohibition against “split verbs,” in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like “to,” or an auxiliary like “will,” and the main verb of the sentence. According to this superstition, Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year mission of the starship Enterprise was “to boldly go where no man has gone before”; it should have been “to go boldly.” Likewise, Dolly Parton should not have declared that “I will always love you” but “I always will love you” or “I will love you always.”
Any speaker who has not been brainwashed by the split-verb myth can sense that these corrections go against the rhythm and logic of English phrasing. The myth originated centuries ago in a thick-witted analogy to Latin, in which it is impossible to split an infinitive because it consists of a single word, like dicere, “to say.” But in English, infinitives like “to go” and future-tense forms like “will go” are two words, not one, and there is not the slightest reason to interdict adverbs from the position between them.
-
Gio, if you are not doing it, then what the hell are you arguing with me about?
Beats me. I was still arguing about the macron thing, you kept making it an issue of excessive pedantry - I suspect you started an argument against phantom opponents since nobody here disagrees with the Stephen Fry position.
-
Just to push things along a bit, who finds themselves compelled to use actual sentences with proper grammar and spelling when mobile texting?
The iPhone has helped me a lot in this ...
-
Too bad nobody here is arguing against that position, ay?
If they're not, then the earler comment by David was possibly a little over-egged.
Why on Earth do you think other people should have to make an effort to know/do what you want? If you are too lazy and/or pigheaded to make yourself clear, why should I care enough to read what you've written, let alone do the job of working out what you mean for you?
As Ben's said, it's not about reversing the onus, it's about being open-minded. If that's what you're saying, then I agree (the coincidence of confusion in a discussion about confusion is amusing I'm sure).
We're increasingly encouraged to write simple, short uncomplicated sentences. This aides understanding and avoids confusion. I get this, I do this, it's fine. But there's not nearly enough space for exploration, for invention and for creativity which can be dense or lacking in structure. SMS novels in Japan offend establish rules but may contain new thinking. If I'm an open-minded reader, I'll ignore confusing construction or poor grammar 'cause there's something new to be heard surely.
In an interview I heard/read/saw with Neil Finn years back, he commented that when he went solo, he didn't get too hung up by a straight narrative in his lyrics, he wanted to communicate a feeling and if that meant odd combinations of words that didn't have an obvious textual meaning then so be it. It's not for Cabinet minutes sure, but that audience has different expectations and perhaps that's my point in simple terms, a good writer knows the audience and their expectations and can fashion content accordingly.
-
Just to push things along a bit, who finds themselves compelled to use actual sentences with proper grammar and spelling when mobile texting?
For short texts, yes - for longer ones, I still start off using the correct forms, but often suddenly shift to txtspk once my patience runs out. So much for writing style being unobtrusive...
-
...who finds themselves compelled to use actual sentences with proper grammar and spelling when mobile texting?
Not a chance. But I do mix full words and txt speak, as in 'walking down queen st 2 u'. Whereas my kids would write 'wlk dn qn st 2 u'.
k?
-
gio, if you agree with what you now understand me to be saying then can we leave it at that?
Russell, I find I can't help it, most of the time. A comma that is not followed by a space just looks wrong, even though it's actually a waste of bytes. It's part of the reason I prefer not to text - it's just too damned slow.
-
I've read through most of this (excepting a slew of the more technical posts) and it has been interesting. As one of the older - aged - PAS posters I haven't been brought up to have any fluency in te reo and I haven't been sufficiently motivated to educate myself along those lines. For me, the main point regarding the use of macrons (or other indicatives) is that they are not readliy available on the keyboards of the computers I use.
If they were easily available then I would be happy to use them, but if they are conjured up using some arcane combination of keystrokes then I am unlikely to do so and I wouldn't expect the majority of people to use them either. (I have learned that using 'alt' and some 3-digit codes will give rise to copyright or trade-mark symbols - is there a similar combination for macrons, umlauts, etc?)
-
Russell, I have, always, refused to be sucked in to the laziness of "TXTSpeak".
However, I am devastated by the lack of a macron, umlaut or even a cedilla in the character map on my phone. how the hell is anyone supposed to understand anything I am trying to convey? -
If they're not, then the earler comment by David was possibly a little over-egged.
I put that down to frustration with the straw argument, frankly, because it's not as if wankerish pedantry and sloppy expression are the only two alternatives available. Most of us can quite happily navigate a middle area where we get neither too hung up on the odd missing apostrophe nor stop caring about getting our point across in a readable and hopefully persuasive manner.
who finds themselves compelled to use actual sentences with proper grammar and spelling when mobile texting?
I do, but I've got my time down to just fifteen minutes per average text ("make thoroughly sure you buy the milk"), so I'm happy with things the way they are.
-
("make thoroughly sure you buy the milk")
Should that not be "make, thoroughly, sure you buy the milk" ?
;-) -
I put that down to frustration with the straw argument, frankly, because it's not as if wankerish pedantry and sloppy expression are the only two alternatives available.
Perhaps so, however the frustration was possibly felt on both sides of the particular debate.
-
Should that not be "make, thoroughly, sure you buy the milk" ?
No. But clearly you have never tried to locate a comma on a 1998 Philips Savvy. You have to scroll all the way down till after the Hyerogliphic pictogram for "here be toilets".
-
Ben, let's use your sign on the beach as a concrete example. What is the purpose of the sign? Why did someone go to the trouble of putting it up?
I think it reasonable to assume that they did so because they want people to (a) be aware that there are dangerous sharks in the vicinity and (b) take sensible precautions accordingly.
Therefore, to achieve those aims, they need to put up a sign that is clearly visible and that clearly states 'beware of sharks' in language that the vast majority of visitors to the beach will understand. They get a sign made that states 'Be ware of sharks'. Someone realises there's been a mistake. Thinking about their readers' needs, they conclude that the mistake is not going to affect the purpose of the sign. If it had been printed in 8-point white lettering on a white background, though, it would. The people who put the sign up would have no basis for saying to the families of shark victims, 'But they should've made the effort to read it.'
Thinking about your readers' needs is simply about ensuring that your writing fulfils its purpose for a particular audience in a particular context.
A friend of mine once said, 'Let's rub them out like a De Kooning.' He was saying this specifically to me, and knew that I'd know it was a reference to Rauschenberg's Erased De Kooning Drawing and so would get the joke. If he'd been trying to make a joke to someone ignorant of art history and had said the same thing, the purpose of the utterance would not have been fulfilled.
-
Giovanni, does that phone NOT! have predictive Hyerogliphics ?
-
Must you embarass me ni frnot of my peers?
-
Must you embarass me ni frnot of my peers?
-
The hell happened there? Preview? Helloooo?
-
Preview does not always mean preview.
;-) -
So there's these two sharks at a crowded beach, checking out the bathers. One say's to the other "Let's rub them out like a De Kooning".
"What, all of them?" says his pal.
"Nah", says the first shark, "just the art casualties. Remember, we're doing this for Damian Hirst". -
Perhaps so, however the frustration was possibly felt on both sides of the particular debate
Not me. I don't get frustrated when people are unclear. I either ask or wait for clarity. Very often it's only me who's not getting it, so I don't really feel angry at the writer.
Which brings me to....
David
The person who put the sign up was doing you a favor. It's your choice if grammar is worth getting eaten by a shark for. I would be very grateful to see a sign like that, which could save my life, however incorrect it is. Of course I would rather see a long and detailed sign written in plain English, explaining the risk of sharks, the number of deaths recently, the alternatives, who the author of the sign was, etc. But if I'm walking down a beach in Indonesia thinking of having a dip, whoever the kind soul was that put the sign up has definitely not incurred any 'onus' of any kind. They've just saved my life.
-
So there's these two sharks at a crowded beach, checking out the bathers. One say's to the other.
"I'll trade you one artist for two copyright infringers"
"That's daylight Robbery"
"Actually it's twilight"
"Pedant" -
As a kiwi who wasn't born in Aotearoa I really like Waitangi Day - despite the politics and the argy-bargy that goes on it shows a degree of maturity as a nation that I find very appealing & reassuring. We know we don't get race relations right 100% of the time but we are streets ahead of most countries, esp those where the indigenous peoples have become disadvantaged within society.
I like the diversity and the tolerance; I understand some of the older people's viewpoint (as mentioned up-thread) but regard that as a historical and passing perspective and I don't share it. I am happy to conform to others cultural expectations as long as they are equally happy to conform to mine and I am proud to be a kiwi.
I'm glad they renamed it as Waitangi Day and I would be happy to fly the tino rangatiratanga flag (did I get that right?). One nation of multiple ethnicities is just fine by me.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.