Misspelling, syntax, punctuation, etc. on MP.com

Brendan Blanchard wrote: Almost, actually. For it to be correct, the semi-colon would be separating two independent clauses.

There are more uses to the semi-colon than separating two independent clauses; fucking super comma.

Finn the Human wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY

Great clip, I hope you're not using it to dismiss the OP though. That would be missing the point of the video. I loved the clip, and the section on proper presentation is very relevant to the OP's point. Presentation is key. If people wish to remain 'internetting' trolls, then change nothing; if you wish to present yourself in a respectable manner and carry a better image, then it's not that hard to change.

I've received several partner requests through MP that I have entirely dismissed or ignored based on the grammar/spelling and general presentation someone gives in a single email. No, I don't pick partners based on proper usage of the semi-color, but I certainly won't pick a partner who can't bother with a period, capital letter, or complete thought.

And finally, to defend myself and my possible failure to adhere to the minutia of grammar: In grammar, you need to know all the rules in order to break them for the purpose of personal expression.

Brendan Blanchard wrote: Great clip, I hope you're not using it to dismiss the OP though. That would be missing the point of the video. I loved the clip, and the section on proper presentation is very relevant to the OP's point. Presentation is key.

Nope, not trying to dismiss anyone's points. It's just food for thought. The video addresses both sides of the argument, which is why I posted it.

Buff Johnson wrote: There are more uses to the semi-colon than separating two independent clauses; fucking super comma.

Well now that we've got this going, in his case, it wasn't used as a super-comma.

"I overuse commas,and semi colons for effect; don't really care."

(I removed the excessive commas for clarity's sake)

The "I" may be implied, but that doesn't change the fact that it's necessary to make the clause complete to justify the use of a semi colon. If "don't care" was used independently, I'd expect it to be from someone with no regard to grammar in the first place, so I suppose it's a moot point. I'd also expect it to be spelled "don't currr."

Furthermore, the comma (or 4 of them) wasn't necessary as there are only two things in question. Using a comma is only necessary if a list exceed several items, whereas " I overuse commas and semi colons for effect" gains more flow and is equally understandable without a comma.

Keep'em coming, I'll be here all night :)

Almost always.

If you are going to put your name on something, do it the best you can.

ye im pretty amazed by some people who dont event known that syntax is the newest teck fabrick for mountaineering....justo sayin...

Hey Dick Wright, aren't you supposed to drop the comma after syntax since you use and?

Ryan N wrote:I don't even know what the fuck syntax is?

Syntax is a tax on alcohol, tobacco and other sins.

Semi colon comes after a colectomy.

Period goes right after your wife or girlfriend act psycho.

John Marsella wrote: prescriptivist. english.stackexchange.com/q… I will concede that it is abnormal to use first-person implied subjects as with the rule that permits the following construction: "The block above you is loose; don't yard on it." In this example, the subject ['you'] is implied in the second clause; by imperative formation it can be considered a grammatically complete independent clause even in the absence of the implied second-person subject. However, I propose that implication of the first-person subject in Ol' Pornchuck's example is parallel enough in syntax to the previously cited formation and, through contextual cues, is clear enough in meaning that it is essentially following the rule, perhaps more in spirit than in the classical definition of the independent clause. Also, here is a link to a fun, pertinent article that uses "fuck" many, many times: douglemoine.com/english-sen… An excerpt follows: (39) Fuck my sister tomorrow afternoon. (40) *Fuck these irregular verbs tomorrow afternoon. (41) Fuck my sister on the sofa. (42) *Fuck communism on the sofa. (43) Fuck my sister carefully. (44) *Fuck complex symbols carefully. All this begs to ask, though: what is language? What is its purpose? Does following one arbitrary set of syntax rules, formation precepts, and pronunciations make those speakers/writers somehow better or more intelligent than speakers/writers who use different sets of rules? Is African American Dialect not a legitimate language because it does not conform to Standard American English? Does Standard American English fall short of the Queen's English because of variances? Do Beowulf and Shakespeare sound funny? Does any derivative language have any standing against the root-tongue? And yeah, I'm bored; durn't currrrr.

There ya go. Nothing better to do on a Wednesday night in the middle of a two week rainfest in the Northeast. Alas, here I am.

Interesting...Perhaps your example is the difference between what is commonly accepted and what is a technically correct but seldom used form. However I would argue that a "you" is a not necessary when giving a command (don't yard on it), but when saying one doesn't care, it's more important to explicitly express that it is "I" who does not care. Then again, you can argue proper English against what is commonly understood all you want, but I don't think either of us were at a loss as to who didn't care in Woodchuck's sentence.

Tis been fun splitting hairs in any case. I do feel a bit like the pretentious fellows that the above video references...so on that note I must applaud your use of big fancy words, and go away now.

Mut wrote:Hey Dick Wright, aren't you supposed to drop the comma after syntax since you use and?

Actually, that's the oxford or serial comma.

Jake Jones wrote:Good grammar and spelling; it's the difference between knowing your shit, and knowing you're shit.

Nice!

Reading some people's posts here (and on other forums) is like trying to have an in depth conversation with a group of Bobcat Goldthwaits.

You can't deny our love for the semicolon!

I have to agree with the grammer/spelling Nazis. If I am reading a post with a lot of errors, I automatically think that the poster is less credible due to their lack of attention to detail. On the other hand, I also make mistakes so an error or two can be overlooked. It does amaze me that so many people cannot write properly. Didn't we all go to skool?

crankenstein wrote:I have to agree with the grammer/spelling Nazis. If I am reading a post with a lot of errors, I automatically think that the poster is less credible due to their lack of attention to detail. On the other hand, I also make mistakes so an error or two can be overlooked. It does amaze me that so many people cannot write properly. Didn't we all go to skool?

It's fairly easy to differentiate the occasional typo or plain old misspelling from the jumbled piles of letters the adepts of twitter-style writing will throw at you.
Even when paying attention the occasional error will slip by and it usually barely registers with me. When someone voluntarily contracts everything, uses UR and throws in a 4 to replace "for", I want to make a necklace out of their teeth.

I feel like the vast majority of people who bitch and moan about the state of grammar/spelling on the internet aren't true language Nazis, or as the video refers to them pedants. They're just people who'd prefer to only read a sentence once to understand its meaning as opposed to having to enunciate it aloud in order to match it with the sounds of words they know.

Seeing "its" in lieu of "it's" makes me cringe a bit but I get it, it takes a few second to get to it while typing on the phone and the meaning usually remains obvious. If you're on the computer take 1/20th of a second to reach the key though...
On the other hand I have friends who constantly write "I should of" instead of "I should have" and that actually takes me a sec to process, a minute to stop ranting about, and an hour to dismiss the thoughts of never speaking to their sorry asses again.

Crankenstein nailed it: if you spell like a first generation audio transcription program, your credibility is nil.

crankenstein wrote:I have to agree with the grammer/spelling Nazis.

grammer?

Ben Hicks wrote: grammer?

Ha! Perfect example. 4tunatelie mi hole post wazzunt dat bad...

Boissal wrote: It's fairly easy to differentiate the occasional typo or plain old misspelling from the jumbled piles of letters the adepts of twitter-style writing will throw at you. Even when paying attention the occasional error will slip by and it usually barely registers with me. When someone voluntarily contracts everything, uses UR and throws in a 4 to replace "for", I want to make a necklace out of their teeth. I feel like the vast majority of people who bitch and moan about the state of grammar/spelling on the internet aren't true language Nazis, or as the video refers to them pedants. They're just people who'd prefer to only read a sentence once to understand its meaning as opposed to having to enunciate it aloud in order to match it with the sounds of words they know. Seeing "its" in lieu of "it's" makes me cringe a bit but I get it, it takes a few second to get to it while typing on the phone and the meaning usually remains obvious. If you're on the computer take 1/20th of a second to reach the key though... On the other hand I have friends who constantly write "I should of" instead of "I should have" and that actually takes me a sec to process, a minute to stop ranting about, and an hour to dismiss the thoughts of never speaking to their sorry asses again. Crankenstein nailed it: if you spell like a first generation audio transcription program, your credibility is nil.

I guess I view this sometimes as laziness, sometimes as a failure of the educational system, but also as cultural differences. If someone else communicates in a different language, does that make them less credible as a human being? If someone is not of the same background/education etc, does that make them less credible as a human being? Language evolves. This offshoot of the English language is a result of practical and cultural evolution.

I choose to forgo communicating in written word with the culture you describe, but that does not make them less credible as humans or climbers to me. They probably avoid interacting with me as well. That's fine.

Just different social norms.

Turd Ferguson! wrote: Your ability to use an apostrophe should be the least of your concerns, Schmidthead/Sheritard. Let's just start with writing sentences in English, moron.

Thank you for proving my point :)

You were still able to understand that correct? Even someone of your intelligence was able to decipher it so who cares about spelling errors online?

Ben Hicks wrote: I guess I view this more as cultural differences. If someone else communicates in a different language, does that make them less credible as a human being? If someone is not of the same background/education etc, does that make them less credible as a human being? I choose to forgo interacting with the culture you describe, but that does not make them less credible as humans or climbers to me. They probably avoid interacting with me as well. That's fine. Just different social norms.

Good point.
In the end it comes down to the fact that we're inherently judgmental and uncomfortable with anything that doesn't line up exactly with our perception of how the world should spin.
Fifty years from now when SMS language (or Newspeak?) is the one standard people will look back on my attitude and chuckle at how narrow-minded I was.