Annoying Chat Speak

[Gashouse6]

I hate it when people use the chat speak. I don't like any of the lol, u, r, and all of that. I'm not saying that it should be disallowed here, I just think it is a little annoying. Does anyone else think this too?
(this isn't supposed to be an insult to those who use chat speek)

[Reed Johnson]

lol ur so funny. r u going to any baseball games this year?

[Mattingly]

Gashouse6, can you please post a link to the threads you've found these in?

AG1, would you mind not attempting to irritate someone by using language that they're complaining about? You may find it funny, but I don't.

Since this is a baseball forum, rather than some chat room, please use proper English, including full words with minimal abbreviation, especially of the "chat" variety.

[Gashouse6]

Gashouse6, can you please post a link to the threads you've found these in?

I think this is going to be very hard to do. This chat is used in a lot of threads.

[Mattingly]

If it's used minimally, and "lol" or "LOL" are used quite often, then I don't mind. If it's used to start a thread or you notice a forumer using this extensively, please post here. If you wish to remain anonymous, then you or anyone else can simply PM one of the Mods here (starting with the forum's Mod). Pick one you feel very comfortable discussing this with. :)

[Captain Cold Nose]

Fortunately, it seems only a minority of posters use chat speak here. It's not really against site rules, so hunting for it won't accomplish much.
You're not alone, Gashouse. Trust me. To be honest, it's hard to take someone seriously here when they shorten words all cutesy like.

[runningshoes]

Fortunately, it seems only a minority of posters use chat speak here. It's not really against site rules, so hunting for it won't accomplish much.
You're not alone, Gashouse. Trust me. To be honest, it's hard to take someone seriously here when they shorten words all cutesy like.

And they tend to have short attention spans anyways, thus not hanging about where the written word is an agreed upon requirement.

[Brian McKenna]

this is not chat speak but i don't think we should be using NL to denote the negro leagues:
1) NL is the traditional abbreviation for national league
2) negro leagues is a term not an entity, it describes all of black baseball, not a specific league like negro national league (NNL) - how many different definitions would you get if you asked a group to define 'negro leagues'?

i suggest - NgL

Negro Major Leagues
1920-31 Negro National League
1923-28 Eastern Colored League
1929 American Negro League
1932 East-West League
1932 Negro Southern League
1933-48 Negro National League
1937-60 Negro American League

[Reed Johnson]

If it's used minimally, and "lol" or "LOL" are used quite often, then I don't mind. If it's used to start a thread or you notice a forumer using this extensively, please post here. If you wish to remain anonymous, then you or anyone else can simply PM one of the Mods here (starting with the forum's Mod). Pick one you feel very comfortable discussing this with. :)

rofl lmao ur even funier.

[Mattingly]

rofl lmao ur even funier.
And might I ask why you're using chatspeak to reply to me in a thread that complains about just that? Are you trying to be a wise acre?

Unless one is sending text messages on a cell phone that lacks a keyboard, I can't see chatspeak being used much, outside of a chatboard itself frequented by teenagers. This is a forum. Please use proper and full words when posting here, as I've seen you do in the past.

Thank you! :)

[Williamsburg2599]

I tend to do this alot:ughh,not to annoy people or to be lazy but mostly because most of the typing I do is either IMs,texts, or friendly emails,so it's sort of a thing of habbit.I apologize if its bugging anyone.

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

Is using this chat speak really this bad? Does it really matter if someone uses LOL once in a while.

As long as people don't use it all the time, what is the big deal?

I can understand that the English language will deteriorate with the use of 4u or r u. But again I wonder if the use of LOL is that harmful.

Question: Is "IMO" a proper abbreviation or is it chat speak also?

Thank you.

[Gashouse6]

Is using this chat speak really this bad? Does it really matter if someone uses LOL once in a while.

As long as people don't use it all the time, what is the big deal?

I can understand that the English language will deteriorate with the use of 4u or r u. But again I wonder if the use of LOL is that harmful.

Question: Is "IMO" a proper abbreviation or is it chat speak also?

Thank you.
A little chat speak isn't that bad. And what does IMO mean? I feel like I should know because I've seen it so much.

[Williamsburg2599]

IMO means In My Opinion.

[Gashouse6]

IMO means In My Opinion.
It all makes sense now!!!:D

[brewcrew82]

Question: Is "IMO" a proper abbreviation or is it chat speak also?

Thank you.

Chat speak, but it seems that it is become more of an accepted abbreviation.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Question Mattingly....

Is WTF considered a bad word on here? And I'm not being a wise arse, I swear.

[brewcrew82]

I would advise against using it. ;) If that abbreviation is used, that could lead the way to more "off-colour" abbreviations and we don't really want that.

[Mattingly]

Question Mattingly....

Is WTF considered a bad word on here? And I'm not being a wise arse, I swear.
Considering that it means "What the F***", I would say it's very unacceptable. I've seen forumers try sneaking in "POS" (piece/pile of s***) and a few others.

I advise against it, since what happens is that people pick up on that and feel that they can say this to each other conversationally, especially with someone they disagree with. If someone takes offense, they can either be insulted or worse, use harsher terms, some of which may not even be abbreviated.

My suggestion to you, especially since you're a wise forumer who's gotten used to us and are part of what I consider the "furniture" around here (meaning people expect to see you here, just as they do the furniture in their homes) is to just act in a way that you'd appreciate others speaking to you, even if they didn't know you.

Since we've got youngsters here, especially in the "Baseball 101" forum, we try keeping the entire site PG-rated. By this, we try strongly limiting any harsh wording that people may think of. The least harsh, the more positive, we feel leads to better communication and less hostility.

Thanks. :)

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Considering that it means "What the F***", I would say it's very unacceptable. I've seen forumers try sneaking in "POS" (piece/pile of s***) and a few others.

I advise against it, since what happens is that people pick up on that and feel that they can say this to each other conversationally, especially with someone they disagree with. If someone takes offense, they can either be insulted or worse, use harsher terms, some of which may not even be abbreviated.

My suggestion to you, especially since you're a wise forumer who's gotten used to us and are part of what I consider the "furniture" around here (meaning people expect to see you here, just as they do the furniture in their homes) is to just act in a way that you'd appreciate others speaking to you, even if they didn't know you.

Since we've got youngsters here, especially in the "Baseball 101" forum, we try keeping the entire site PG-rated. By this, we try strongly limiting any harsh wording that people may think of. The least harsh, the more positive, we feel leads to better communication and less hostility.

Thanks. :)

Mattingly,

Figured as much. While I could be typing something I saw, like "I walked over there and thought wtf, where did this come from." Even if used in those terms, it's something that could end up being used too liberally, and that's no good. Gotcha ;)

Sincerely,

The Leather Couch

[Mattingly]

Mattingly,

Figured as much. While I could be typing something I saw, like "I walked over there and thought wtf, where did this come from." Even if used in those terms, it's something that could end up being used too liberally, and that's no good. Gotcha ;)

Sincerely,

The Leather Couch
Hey, that's the spirit.

What I'd forgotten to post was that, since you're considered a knowledgeable forumer of a historical figure, per your username and overall knowledge of baseball history, I kind of tend to expect a bit more of people like that. There are Mods and there are forumers who post well and keep the place in order, as to their discretion and thoughtfulness. Sort of like the "senior" or "upstanding citizens" here.

There are many, but since I definitely have to think quite a few times before posting, and believe me, there have been *QUITE* a few times that a few words posted too liberally from me could've caused a firestorm, I just ask the more respected forumers here to keep the place in upstanding order.

Since you're the Leather Couch, I'm quite sure that it would be a very high quality collector's item. Louis XIV, anybody? :D

Take care, enjoy the board. :)

[Ubiquitous]

I find it odd that when people find other peoples behaviour or actions annoying they want them to change. To me its like an old man yelling at the sky because its raining.

Once you go down the path of changing other peoples ways you expose to others changing your ways.

I'm a strong live and let live person. If you're reading somebodies posts and you find them annoying or grating heres a hint on what to do. Stop reading the post! If you are getting nothing of value from a posters words then don't read their posts, getting them to write in perfect english is not going to change the value of their post, it's just going to take longer to read. Almost nothing has ever been gained by pointing out a flaw in somebodies grammar, spelling, or writing style.

[Mattingly]

I find it odd that when people find other peoples behaviour or actions annoying they want them to change. To me its like an old man yelling at the sky because its raining.

Once you go down the path of changing other peoples ways you expose to others changing your ways.

I'm a strong live and let live person. If you're reading somebodies posts and you find them annoying or grating heres a hint on what to do. Stop reading the post! If you are getting nothing of value from a posters words then don't read their posts, getting them to write in perfect english is not going to change the value of their post, it's just going to take longer to read. Almost nothing has ever been gained by pointing out a flaw in somebodies grammar, spelling, or writing style.
That would seem quite plausible in real life. If I didn't like someone's ways, I'd likely ignore them. In fact, I've done just that.

However, in online, once one person starts this up, then the next person and then another continues this. Soon, we'll have more people doing this.

I happen to overlook quite a few grammatical errors. If someone writes "it's" when it should be "its", or "red" instead of "read" or something, I've looked the other way. I'll just want to know what the person is saying.

However, when I see "r u gng 2 cm c me 2dy" or anything similar, I'm thinking the person isn't even making an attempt to discuss things in a regular manner.

So long as the majority of threads I've written here were in the regular English, I'm more than happy keeping it that way. If people don't like that, then my alternative would be for them to find other forums were chatspeak is both acceptable and encouraged. I'm not sure how great the level of discussion would be in highly abbreviated form, nor how much research someone would even bother to put in if they're not even willing to compose a few simple sentences or paragraphs, but I'm happy the way things are here. :)

[2Chance]

I happen to be one of those dinosaurs who never chats, texts or makes an attempt to read those bungled mini-messages. However, there are a few abbreviations that I recognize and think are acceptable. Just throwing these out for you, Mr. Mattingly:
LOL=Laugh(ing) Out Loud
IMO=In My Opinion
IMHO=In My Humble Opinion
IIRC=If I Remember Correctly

I had to ask about that last one, but it has some application on a discussion board like this. ("IIRC, Junior had two home runs in that game...") It's something that is recognizable now, even though for my use, it's usually typed out before I can remember the abbreviation.

Most other "annoying chatspeak" isn't recognizable, and I think there are a lot of us who appreciate you and your fellow moderators keeping this area looking like we have a modicum of intelligence. The use of these more than a little bit can reflect poorly on a group of people who have so much baseball knowledge.

[Mattingly]

2Chance:

I believe that the abbreviations you'd mentioned would be quite acceptable here. What bothers me is when people abbreviate everyday words, like "you're" to become "ur" or change "today" to "2day" or something similar.

Unless someone has less than a regulation-sized keyboard, what's so hard to type up about a few words? I've posted very long posts on a regular keyboard, so unless someone is on a cell phone keyboard or using one of those mini keyboards built into a PDA, why can't they type regular sentences?

I've used "bg" (big grin), ROFLOL (rolling on the floor laughing out loud) and many others. Not that often now, but those are fine.

I just get the impression that if someone isn't going to take a few seconds to post in regular English, then they may not even do any research or put any thought into what they're writing. If someone proves me correct, then fine. However, the regulars here would need to understand what's being written.

If we're all on the same page re understanding a few abbreviations like IMHO (in my humble/honest opinion). However, those are like words "thrown in" to a regular discussion. When the words become a larger part of the text people are writing, then it becomes problematic.

http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm

There are quite a few abbreviated words in here, as it's extensive. If someone posted these words on a regular basis, we'd all need an online dictionary before too long. Either that or we'd never be able to understand what was written, which would be a sad waste of good ideas. :o :(

[Bill Burgess]

I find this a useful conversation. I find that sometimes, using abbreviated stuff is helpful, but sometimes am annoyed when others do it. As usual, when I do it, it feels advanced. When others do it, it feels sloppy.

I also often use misspellings deliberately, to conjure the flavor of sports speak. Some of my oft-used lingo includes: dunno, wanna, gotta, 'scuse me, cuz.

When I first arrived here, I also allowed myself a teensy bit of cussing. For example; "So what if Wagner/Cobb played in a sh__ league?" Later, I came to see that as unacceptable, and I used the search mode to go back and edited out all my past cussing. I changed the sh word to crap.

I also feel that WTF is going too far, because we all know what that means. I sometimes use, "What the . . . ?", because I intended it to mean, "What the hell?" "Mofo" also crosses the line for the same reason.

It used to bother me a lot when certain members refused to use any capital letters, but then one member explained why and it was legitimate.

I now feel it shows a lack of imagination to rely on profanity. I also was able to figure out most of the online abbreviations, such as:

IMO - In my opinion.
IMHO - In my humble opinion.
IOW - In other words.
FYI - For your information.
OTOH - On the other hand.
BTW - By the way.
LMAO - Laughing my ass off.


These 2 I just learned now!

LOL=Laugh(ing) Out Loud
IIRC=If I Remember Correctly

I thought LOL was Lots of Luck! Sheesh. Gotta get my colorful street language together.

If there was one thing I wish I could make happen to clean up our posts, is if everyone used the spell checker before posting. It's the unobtrusive check mark in the upper right hand corner with the letters ABC over it. That one feature could make people sound so much better. We've only had it less than a year, and we all complained, "How much easier it would be if we have it." Now we do and few use it. I go out of my way to clean up my buddies, Randy, SABR Matt, and others, just to have their backs.

Good exchanging here folks.

Bill

[Brooklyn]

Bill - thanks for the info on the spell checker. I couldn't live in my professional life without one, and didn't actually realize it had been added here

As a side note, this is the first post I've spell checked, and found 2 mistakes! Of course, I was more careful before I knew there was a spell checker, but I'm sure many typos still made it through.

[Bill Burgess]

Bill - thanks for the info on the spell checker. I couldn't live in my professional life without one, and didn't actually realize it had been added here, so thanks for educating me (on something other than baseball, for a change)

As a side note, this is the first post I've spell checked, and found 2 mistakes! Of course, I was more careful before I knew there was a spell checker, but I'm sure many typos still made it through.

Webmaster Sean added the spell checker on Oct. 2, 2005.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=34236

[Gashouse6]

I didn't know there was a spell checker either. I just opened up a word document and typed the word in.

[Bill Burgess]

Re: Spell Checker

Blessed art they who have not seen, and yet believe.

[Brian McKenna]

as well i didn't know about spell checker - i try to download it but my system blocks it every time - any ideas?

[Ubiquitous]

turn off your pop-up blocker. Or lower your security settings if it isn't the pop-up blocker.

[Brian McKenna]

got it thanks - went to the web site

[Sultan_1895-1948]

If someone writes "it's" when it should be "its", or "red" instead of "read" or something, I've looked the other way.

Maybe I missed that lesson in 8th grade English. I've always typed it's because it's the coming together of two words, "it" and "is." Much like I'll is "I" and "will", or you've is "you" and "have." hmmmm, guess I need to study up :cool:

[Bill Burgess]

Maybe I missed that lesson in 8th grade English. I've always typed it's because it's the coming together of two words, "it" and "is." Much like I'll is "I" and "will", or you've is "you" and "have." hmmmm, guess I need to study up :cool:

Its is not 2 words expressed as a contraction. Its denotes ownership of, or association with. For example.

"The pine tree is an evergreen. Its pine needles are its 'leaves'. Its pine cones are its 'fruits'."

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Its is not 2 words expressed as a contraction. Its denotes ownership of, or association with. For example. The pine tree is an evergreen. Its pine needles are its 'leaves'.

Good point. Thanks for the lesson :o

[Mattingly]

Maybe I missed that lesson in 8th grade English. I've always typed it's because it's the coming together of two words, "it" and "is." Much like I'll is "I" and "will", or you've is "you" and "have." hmmmm, guess I need to study up :cool:
I think you may have missed my point a little bit. What I was saying is that, while you're technically correct re the "I'll", "we've", etc, my main point was that if someone uses the incorrect word, I don't fuss about it too much.

People make points, and so long as I can understand them, I won't worry too much if they use the wrong word.

IOW (In other words), I won't complaint too much if they slightly butcher the English language. :)

[tigers527]

SNAFU...now that is (that's) not chat speak, but we all know what it is? no? Perhaps we need to extent this philosophy.....from now on, I want every one to talk of HOME RUNS not HRs....Earned Run Average not ERA. Anyway, you're (you are) all being assinine.

100 years ago more less. Typesetters had this same issue, much of the period around this time there was a movement to change words and more particularly there spelling to make them simpler. One of the issues they had was type setting the Boston Red Stockings, and the Chicago White Stockings. For that matter I think the Reds were at one time the Red Stockings? Although, we do not spell all cks sounds with a x now. The White Sox and Red Sox are better then the word Stockings in place of Sox? No?

Yes, I did learn a little "chat speak" just now, IMO for example. Baseball is so full of abreviations however, I can't (can not) see people being that pissed?

BTW (by the way) - if you question an abreviation just ask...it ain't (is'nt=is not) that hard :waving

[redbuck]

lol, wtf wddm wat ppl say 2 u? imo it's gr8

Rotflmo

g2g

:laugh

[Bill Burgess]

lol, wtf wddm wat ppl say 2 u? imo it's gr8

Rotflmo

g2g

:laugh

Even using this link,

"http://www.netlingo.com/emailsh.cfm"

your post was still hard to read.

We do not use "wtf" on Fever. I DO know what that means and find it disrespectful. Bear in mind, we have tons of teens, ladies and others here. We also have over 1,000 different guests here every day. So we try to be civil, clean and respectful.

Bill

[Mattingly]

SNAFU...now that is (that's) not chat speak, but we all know what it is? no? Perhaps we need to extent this philosophy.....from now on, I want every one to talk of HOME RUNS not HRs....Earned Run Average not ERA. Anyway, you're (you are) all being assinine.
Actually, SNAFU is an acronym, meaning it's an abbreviation that ends up being spelled out as a word, rather than through individual letters. USA is an abbreviation for the United States of America, but UNICEF is an acronym.

As to HRs, RBI, IBB, if you check out the MLB Abbreviations page (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/baseball_basics/abbreviations.jsp), you can see what the majority of stats stand for, both for hitting and pitching. If you need further stats re SABR, then please go to that forum and see more.
100 years ago more less. Typesetters had this same issue, much of the period around this time there was a movement to change words and more particularly there spelling to make them simpler. One of the issues they had was type setting the Boston Red Stockings, and the Chicago White Stockings. For that matter I think the Reds were at one time the Red Stockings? Although, we do not spell all cks sounds with a x now. The White Sox and Red Sox are better then the word Stockings in place of Sox? No?
Actually, newspaper headline writers had this issue also. I'm not sure why the Red Sox changed their name from the Red Stockings, but it could've been just that, since it took too many letters to write something about the team's win/loss in addition to their name. The NY Highlanders became the NY Yankees because the headline writers couldn't fit a storyline onto a headline. Thus, "Yanks _____" for the headline.

Still, when we've got keyboards and don't need to worry about writing headlines, I think that this need to shorten common words may be overdone. I still believe that if someone can write a whole sentence and paragraph, you can put some thought and research behind your words, rather than the "quick post and out the door" thing.
Yes, I did learn a little "chat speak" just now, IMO for example. Baseball is so full of abreviations however, I can't (can not) see people being that pissed?
I'm well familiar with the words "can't", "aren't", "I'll", "we've", so no need to explain in a parenthetical which words are being combined. I've also used "ain't", which is a long-used slang word that doesn't exist in the English language.

As mentioned in my last paragraph, please see the various baseball abbreviations, which are commonly used in baseball articles, analysis, player comparison and the like. They are used here, on other baseball boards and in newspapers and magazines across the USA.
BTW (by the way) - if you question an abreviation just ask...it ain't (is'nt=is not) that hard :waving
If someone uses an abbreviation, it's acceptable to ask what it means? That may be so, but if everyone hear knows what K/9 ratio is, if everyone here knows the BB:K ratio is, if everyone here knows what a GIDP is, if everyone hear knows what an OPS stands for, then I don't believe that requires much explanation, given that the person is familiar with standard MLB abbreviations, has taken the time to familiarize themselves with their meanings and how these oft-used stats are calculated.

By comparison, if someone uses the netlingo to a great extent, if we're not on the same page for this (meaning we don't all understand the terms being used), then I'm not sure what the advantage--or even use--of a post is if only the post writer can understand it.

If someone posted something here in Samoan, who but the post writer could understand it? Nothing critical of the Samoan nation or its people, nor of the net lingo, but you may as well be speaking Samoan if few people here can understand it. :)

[Mattingly]

lol, wtf wddm wat ppl say 2 u? imo it's gr8

Rotflmo

g2g

:laugh
Translation:

"Laughing out loud, *** "wddm[?] what people say to you? In my opinion, it's great.

Rolling on the floor laughing my *ss off

Got to go"

What you've written here isn't just net lingo, but what secretaries call "shorthand", meaning that the vowels are removed and that the resulting "word" is "sounded out", so that it's spelled the way it looks. Thus, "gr8" = "great".

That's also discouraged. It takes too long, and people aren't here to translate posts. If trying to make a point like this, if you can't just write what you mean, then who can possibly understand it?

BTW, please stay far away from the "wtf" thing. One person's "WTF" is met wtih another's "STFU", which is "Shut the **** up". Not a very nice scenario here, since we insist that all posts be kept PG-13, per the audience members and visitors here. This is a baseball sports forum, not an adult male-only locker room.

[Bill Burgess]

Good friends,

What is acceptable in a male-only private conversation, might not be appropriate in a public forum. Here's an easy guideline.

If you'd hesitate saying something if your parents, spouse, kids were standing right there, it probably would raise heckles for some members here. Sports chat in not male-only bonding. We're so much broader than that here.

We are indeed a family rating. Only takes a moment's thought, and some kind consideration for the sensitivities of those who might be trying to hold themselves to a nicer standard. Just a thought, my brothers & sisters.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Thus, "gr8" = "great".



I like to think of that as "license plate speak." Ever get behind a car, you know its(<<<<<< I'm working on it :D) a personlized license plate. You sit there trying to figure out what the heck it means. Yeah, we could do without brain teasers, especially when the pay-off for all that deciphering isn't that great :rolleyes:

[Mattingly]

I like to think of that as "license plate speak." Ever get behind a car, you know its(<<<<<< I'm working on it :D) a personlized license plate. You sit there trying to figure out what the heck it means. Yeah, we could do without brain teasers, especially when the pay-off for all that deciphering isn't that great :rolleyes:
Oh yeah, that's right. I remember seeing some "interesting" license plates on a car mag. One was on the back of an Italian "exoticar". It read "IXLR8" (I accelerate).

I think there were some custom plates that had code, so the workers at the local Motor Vehicles Departments would translate them to see what they'd really meant.

Yeah, that could also be done without. However, if someone writes a simple "w/o" for "without", so long as their entire post isn't abbreviated, I can deal with this. :)

[tigers527]

Now I undersatnd and agree with the profane code not being allowed. But honestly is the web speak all that terrible? I have not seen it here to the point of this many posts are merrited. <shrugs> ttfn peeps (ta ta for now)

[Mattingly]

Now I undersatnd and agree with the profane code not being allowed. But honestly is the web speak all that terrible? I have not seen it here to the point of this many posts are merrited. <shrugs> ttfn peeps (ta ta for now)
Basically, people bring up points, so questions will arise about those points. Prior to this thread, some people may not have even known what some of the chatspeak was all about, so if it's been at least cleared up in this thread, then some use has been made of this thread.

I haven't come across an excessive amount, but I still like to keep this site free from most of that.

[tigers527]

I haven't come across an excessive amount, but I still like to keep this site free from most of that.

Keeping Baseball fever free from brb & gtg how noble. Just kidding :D

[SoxSon]

I happen to overlook quite a few grammatical errors. If someone writes "it's" when it should be "its", or "red" instead of "read" or something, I've looked the other way. I'll just want to know what the person is saying.



I try to do the same when folks put the comma outside the quotation marks. :p

(Hiya, Mattingly! :) :laugh :waving )

[Mattingly]

I try to do the same when folks put the comma outside the quotation marks. :p

(Hiya, Mattingly! :) :laugh :waving )
I'm actually a fan of putting the commas, periods and exclamation marks outside of the quotes. To me, if someone said "something", then that's exactly what they've written:

"something", as opposed to:

"something,"

Since the "," isn't a part of what they wrote, I exclude it. Others think it looks funny, so that's why either format is acceptable. Some despise each.

Now since you were talking about me, I'll have to fit you into a Yankee cap very shortly. :p Whoops, my bad. That may be fodder for another thread. :D :laugh

[runningshoes]

I'm actually a fan of putting the commas, periods and exclamation marks outside of the quotes. To me, if someone said "something", then that's exactly what they've written:

"something", as opposed to:

"something,"

Since the "," isn't a part of what they wrote, I exclude it. Others think it looks funny, so that's why either format is acceptable. Some despise each.

Now since you were talking about me, I'll have to fit you into a Yankee cap very shortly. :p Whoops, my bad. That may be fodder for another thread. :D :laugh

Kudos to the grammatically challenged.

You should start a club. :laugh

[SoxSon]

I'm actually a fan of putting the commas, periods and exclamation marks outside of the quotes. To me, if someone said "something", then that's exactly what they've written:

"something", as opposed to:

"something,"

Since the "," isn't a part of what they wrote, I exclude it. Others think it looks funny, so that's why either format is acceptable. Some despise each.

Now since you were talking about me, I'll have to fit you into a Yankee cap very shortly. :p Whoops, my bad. That may be fodder for another thread. :D :laugh


You can be a fan of it, but it's grammatically wrong, you Yankee fan! Either form is not acceptable in the United States. It goes inside the quotation marks, unless you are identifying a single letter, as in "A", or a number, as in "9", if you see what I mean. :p

[Mattingly]

You can be a fan of it, but it's grammatically wrong, you Yankee fan! Either form is not acceptable in the United States. It goes inside the quotation marks, unless you are identifying a single letter, as in "A", or a number, as in "9", if you see what I mean. :p
Oh geez, Sawx fans telling people what they should be fans of.

*Looks to see if there's a law against this.* :p :laugh
Kudos to the grammatically challenged.

You should start a club. :laugh
Hmmmmmmmm, does this mean I can bonk two heads for the price of one?

*BONK!* *BONK!*

Yeah, I only get like this when I'm tired, bored ... or we're playing Beantown tomorrow. Pick your poison. :p

[tigers527]

I do this one myself, but am I the only one that does not like RBIs, the stat is already plural RUNS batted in, hence the s at the end is reduntant, and doesn't make sense. The beauty of RBI is it corrects itself if the happens to only be 1 RBI or 5 RBI....just say no....to the s on RBI. :crazy

[Mattingly]

I do this one myself, but am I the only one that does not like RBIs, the stat is already plural RUNS batted in, hence the s at the end is reduntant, and doesn't make sense. The beauty of RBI is it corrects itself if the happens to only be 1 RBI or 5 RBI....just say no....to the s on RBI. :crazy
Yeah, I've heard that a few times. I figured it means Run(s) Batted In, so the "s" would be like saying "ink pen", which is another thing I've never been crazy about.

As to abbreviations, I've been writing "Thx" for "Thanks", "w/o" for "without" and other common things. Not chatspeak, but I figured most people know that if I write "30-y.o.", I mean a 30-year-old person.

[runningshoes]

My Canadian Press Style Book indicates RBI's as the correct form.

Sorry guys. :p

[digglahhh]

Actually, SNAFU is an acronym, meaning it's an abbreviation that ends up being spelled out as a word, rather than through individual letters. USA is an abbreviation for the United States of America, but UNICEF is an acronym.

Very impressive, Mattingly. Many English teachers are unaware of the distinction between the two.

Of course those of us who are George Carlin fans have heard him rant about this before.

[digglahhh]

I'm actually a fan of putting the commas, periods and exclamation marks outside of the quotes. To me, if someone said "something", then that's exactly what they've written:

"something", as opposed to:

"something,"

Since the "," isn't a part of what they wrote, I exclude it. Others think it looks funny, so that's why either format is acceptable. Some despise each.

Now since you were talking about me, I'll have to fit you into a Yankee cap very shortly. :p Whoops, my bad. That may be fodder for another thread. :D :laugh

Oh, and then you disappoint with this to follow up. No offense, but the MLA doesn't really care what you think about the rule...

[Mattingly]

Very impressive, Mattingly. Many English teachers are unaware of the distinction between the two.

Of course those of us who are George Carlin fans have heard him rant about this before.
Thanks.

I actually learned of this many years ago from my English teacher. I believe that UNICEF was one of the "spelled out" abbreviations that were introduced to us as acronyms. NASA and NATO are others.

Some abbreviations, such as laser and radar are commonly accepted words without either the abbreviations or UPPERCASE text.

laser (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=laser) = [l(ight) a(mplification by) s(timulated) e(mission of) r(adiation).]

radar (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=radar) = [ra(dio) d(etecting) a(nd) r(anging).]

As to standup comedian George Carlin's thoughts or rants or whatever re chatspeak, of the ones that can be posted here :D, what has he said?
Oh, and then you disappoint with this to follow up. No offense, but the MLA doesn't really care what you think about the rule...
What's the MLA, and what are their rules? If you have a link to this, I'd appreciate it. :)

[digglahhh]

If you spend time either researching or carefully articulating a point in your post, you aren't going to cheapen it by using all sorts of silly shortcuts. So, I kind of see the the whole issue as self-regulating, a filtering process.

But grammatical errors or misspellings are not the same thing. While they may annoy some of us, its a different type of standard to ask to hold everybody to.

The chat speak is an issue of courtesy, I think, but the grammar is a little elitist.

[Mattingly]

If you spend time either researching or carefully articulating a point in your post, you aren't going to cheapen it by using all sorts of silly shortcuts. So, I kind of see the the whole issue as self-regulating, a filtering process.

But grammatical errors or misspellings are not the same thing. While they may annoy some of us, its a different type of standard to ask to hold everybody to.

The chat speak is an issue of courtesy, I think, but the grammar is a little elitist.
So if you're reading a post on BBF, such as someone's opinion on Pujols, pitching records or whatever, what kinds of things would you not mind, but what would bother you when reading this?

As to the grammar or misspelling thing, if someone doesn't use punctuation marks often, does that bother you? How about people who put too many things into one paragraph without breaking into a separate paragraph to make a new point?

As to grammar being elitist, how so? I've never heard of this before, so if you could elaborate a bit on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thx. :) (<==Annoying chatspeak) :D :p

[digglahhh]

MLA is an abreviation (not acronym:p ) for the Modern Language Association. The MLA sets the guidlelines used for the vast majority of academic writing (especially that oustide of the hard sciences), including citation formats.

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is one of the most famous and widely used references for questions of this kind and its states that all punctuation should be included inside quotation marks. The New York Times Style Guide agrees.

As long as we are on the subject of common grammatical errors here, let me voice one that comes up all the time- even amongst our most meticulous posters.

The apostrophe alone, without an "s" serves as the possesive form of a plural subject, not just any word that ends in an "s." To form the possesive for a player, whose name ends in "s" the "s" is needed after the apostrophe.

Barry Bonds' implies that there are more than one Barry Bonds and whatever we are attributing to Bonds is really attributed to all the Barry Bondses of the world.

Barry Bonds's is in fact correct as far as I understand.

When you speak the sentence you say the extra "s." Phonetically, you say Barry Bonds'es records... However, when the subject is plural you do not pronounce an extra "s." For example, the teachers' contact, is not pronounced, the teachers'es contract...

I admit this is a case where the correct form looks funny. In fact, this rule has been so widely misapplied that I have frequently used the wrong form myself, just to comply. But since this seems like the place to clarify, I thought I would post here.

[digglahhh]

As to grammar being elitist, how so? I've never heard of this before, so if you could elaborate a bit on this, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thx. :) (<==Annoying chatspeak) :D :p

Sorry, I forgot to include in the last post that the MLA's website is just MLA.org, I believe.

Anyway, what I meant by this is that the chat speak is an issue of communication. Too much chat speak, or even a little, can serve as an obstacle to somebody's comprehension of a written post. So, in that case it is a matter of courtesy to your readers that you do what you can to make your posts readable and understandable. Using "its" when you mean "it's" doesn't create the same problem. People don't have trouble understanding your point because of it. Certainly, we should try to write correctly and have great respect for our language, but the pragmatic aspect of the two issues are different for the purposes here.

A little memory trigger for the "its vs it's" issue is that the apostrophe is only used when you are actually replacing a letter. If unsure, you can just type out "it is.":)

[Captain Cold Nose]

MLA is an abreviation (not acronym:p ) for the Modern Language Association. The MLA sets the guidlelines used for the vast majority of academic writing (especially that oustide of the hard sciences), including citation formats.

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is one of the most famous and widely used references for questions of this kind and its states that all punctuation should be included inside quotation marks. The New York Times Style Guide agrees.

As long as we are on the subject of common grammatical errors here, let me voice one that comes up all the time- even amongst our most meticulous posters.

The apostrophe alone, without an "s" serves as the possesive form of a plural subject, not just any word that ends in an "s." To form the possesive for a player, whose name ends in "s" the "s" is needed after the apostrophe.

Barry Bonds' implies that there are more than one Barry Bonds and whatever we are attributing to Bonds is really attributed to all the Barry Bondses of the world.

Barry Bonds's is in fact correct as far as I understand.

When you speak the sentence you say the extra "s." Phonetically, you say Barry Bonds'es records... However, when the subject is plural you do not pronounce an extra "s." For example, the teachers' contact, is not pronounced, the teachers'es contract...

I admit this is a case where the correct form looks funny. In fact, this rule has been so widely misapplied that I have frequently used the wrong form myself, just to comply. But since this seems like the place to clarify, I thought I would post here.
Thanks, digglahhh. The plural possessive s was hit home and hit hard in a few Master's level English courses of mine. No one seems to believe me when I patiently chastise those who don't use it properly.

[digglahhh]

CCN,

It's funny because in the Bonds threads, I will see so many posts that say "Bonds'" and then I will post a reply and say "Bonds's."

Nobody would say anything though to ask about it. Then there would be fifty more "Bonds'" posts.

I actually anticipated that somebody would call me on it, thinking I was wrong, but nothing...

It really doesn't bother me all too much, but I figured this looked to be the best place to bring it up I was going to get.

[Captain Cold Nose]

CCN,

It's funny because in the Bonds threads, I will see so many posts that say "Bonds'" and then I will post a reply and say "Bonds's."

Nobody would say anything though to ask about it. Then there would be fifty more "Bonds'" posts.

I actually anticipated that somebody would call me on it, thinking I was wrong, but nothing...

It really doesn't bother me all too much, but I figured this looked to be the best place to bring it up I was going to get.
This is as good of a place as any to post that.
You're right, it just looks strange when you type it out like that. Bonds's. I do that, and do expect to be called out on it. It's not happened here. This is a pretty informal (for the most part) board, so it would surprise me if that ever did get called out. It's not a blatant error, like their/they're/there or its/it's. It may cause some to ponder if it's correct more than anything.

[SoxSon]

MLA is an abreviation (not acronym:p ) for the Modern Language Association. The MLA sets the guidlelines used for the vast majority of academic writing (especially that oustide of the hard sciences), including citation formats.

Strunk and White's The Elements of Style is one of the most famous and widely used references for questions of this kind and its states that all punctuation should be included inside quotation marks. The New York Times Style Guide agrees.

As long as we are on the subject of common grammatical errors here, let me voice one that comes up all the time- even amongst our most meticulous posters.

The apostrophe alone, without an "s" serves as the possesive form of a plural subject, not just any word that ends in an "s." To form the possesive for a player, whose name ends in "s" the "s" is needed after the apostrophe.

Barry Bonds' implies that there are more than one Barry Bonds and whatever we are attributing to Bonds is really attributed to all the Barry Bondses of the world.

Barry Bonds's is in fact correct as far as I understand.

When you speak the sentence you say the extra "s." Phonetically, you say Barry Bonds'es records... However, when the subject is plural you do not pronounce an extra "s." For example, the teachers' contact, is not pronounced, the teachers'es contract...

I admit this is a case where the correct form looks funny. In fact, this rule has been so widely misapplied that I have frequently used the wrong form myself, just to comply. But since this seems like the place to clarify, I thought I would post here.

Hi digglahhh--
It has just come to my attention that you and I might share our career. Are you currently teaching, too?

What's interesting is that placing punctuation inside quotation marks is not universal for all English-speaking countries. It is, however, universal for the United States.

Also, there are sources that will allow for a singular possessive to end with an apostrophe (such as Bonds'). I know it is not preferred, but several sources do acknowledge it as a secondary option. :)

[Mattingly]

I'm still waiting to see how diggs is "king of the ellipsis" ... ;)

As to "Bonds'", I've both used this and done the same for names ending with an "x" also.

[tigers527]

This is as good of a place as any to post that.
You're right, it just looks strange when you type it out like that. Bonds's. I do that, and do expect to be called out on it. It's not happened here. This is a pretty informal (for the most part) board, so it would surprise me if that ever did get called out. It's not a blatant error, like their/they're/there or its/it's. It may cause some to ponder if it's correct more than anything.

All this time, I thought that the correct possive from of Bonds would be Bonds' hmmm....I guess I might be thinking of the rare cases where someones name ends in 2 ss. For example, I really liked Philip Glass' new composition (he was the first guy I could think of with the ss ending). Am I at least correct there?

Oh well, when it comes to english I am horrid...like I said in an earlier post in different thread. Bad grammer is still grammer. :D

[Williamsburg2599]

Bonds coming up in a grammer lesson?It seems we could be talking about dinner etiqitue of ancient mogolian tribes and he would still come up:D:crazy

[Brian McKenna]

impressive but let's work on the little things first - like telling everyone that a lot is two words

[tigers527]

Bonds coming up in a grammer lesson?It seems we could be talking about dinner etiqitue of ancient mogolian tribes and he would still come up:D:crazy

Duh... you do know that Ghengis Khan's diet and Barry Bonds's are identical. As to the etiqitue, however almost completely different, except when Barry visits the renaissance fair and orders one of those trukey drumsticks.:D

[Captain Cold Nose]

impressive but let's work on the little things first - like telling everyone that a lot is two words
:clapping :clapping
And anyways is not a word at all.

[digglahhh]

Hi digglahhh--
It has just come to my attention that you and I might share our career. Are you currently teaching, too?

No, I'm just a nerd.:)

I've always been very interested in language, usage, semantics, nuances and so forth.

Actually, I work in the Stats Dept. and MLB.com, where I use the numbers on the keyboard far more than the letters, except of course when I'm here while at work.:p

I have done SAT tutoring and was offered a job working for Kaplan, but reject the notion of economic privilege replicating itself through the inequality of educational experiences.

Teaching at the collegiate level is something that I can really see in my future, but of course at a (comparitively) affordable school.

What's interesting is that placing punctuation inside quotation marks is not universal for all English-speaking countries. It is, however, universal for the United States.

British Columbia is one area where the punctuation goes outside the quotes, If I remember correctly.

Also, there are sources that will allow for a singular possessive to end with an apostrophe (such as Bonds'). I know it is not preferred, but several sources do acknowledge it as a secondary option. :)

Yeah, but isn't that kind of like the dictionary including "nite." When something is done incorrectly enough, it becomes accepted, but we, individually, don't have to acknowledge that philosophy, right? Correct me if this is not an example of the "nite" phenomenon because I may be wrong. That's just my hypothesis.


Mattingly,

Who uses the ellipsis more than I do?

[SoxSon]

No, I'm just a nerd.:)

Thanks a lot for the commentary on me. ;)


I've always been very interested in language, usage, semantics, nuances and so forth.

Actually, I work in the Stats Dept. and MLB.com, where I use the numbers on the keyboard far more than the letters, except of course when I'm here while at work.:p

I have done SAT tutoring and was offered a job working for Kaplan, but reject the notion of economic privilege replicating itself through the inequality of educational experiences.

Teaching at the collegiate level is something that I can really see in my future, but of course at a (comparitively) affordable school.


What would you like to teach? Statistics? Are you interested in branching out to linguistics or literature? (Yes, I know, Mattingly...we're getting to "PM" time!)


British Columbia is one area where the punctuation goes outside the quotes, If I remember correctly.


The British often place all punctuation outside of quotation marks. I'm not sure about British Columbia.
To clarify the rule, all periods and commas are to be placed inside quotation marks; colons and semicolons are placed outside. Question marks, exclamation points and dashes go inside quotation marks when they are part of the quotation and outside when they aren't.


Yeah, but isn't that kind of like the dictionary including "nite." When something is done incorrectly enough, it becomes accepted, but we, individually, don't have to acknowledge that philosophy, right? Correct me if this is not an example of the "nite" phenomenon because I may be wrong. That's just my hypothesis.


I don't think so. Elements of Style itself makes an exception for the possessive singular form of ancient names. For example, one wouldn't place -'s after Moses or Achilles. Beyond that, there are other reputable sources that provide exceptions. Diana Hacker, in A Writer's Reference, and Kirszner and Mandell, in The Brief Holt Handbook, both claim that if pronunciation would be awkward with the added -'s, writers should use only the apostrophe. John E. Warriner, in English Grammar and Composition, comes right out and says that in these cases, writers should punctuate according to pronunciation.

This is all more than anyone here wants to know, I'm sure. :)

[Williamsburg2599]

Duh... you do know that Ghengis Khan's diet and Barry Bonds's are identical. As to the etiqitue, however almost completely different, except when Barry visits the renaissance fair and orders one of those trukey drumsticks.:D
:laugh :laugh .Barry like food.food good.:crazy

[digglahhh]

What would you like to teach? Statistics? Are you interested in branching out to linguistics or literature?

Statistics, no way. :laugh

My undergraduate degree is in sociology. My MA is in Urban Studies. I woud really like to teach sociology through the lens of sports. If universities have sociology classes about "Sex and the City" and "The Sopranos," surely sports warrant sociology classes. I'm facinated by sports as microcosms of the societies in which they are played.


I don't think so. Elements of Style itself makes an exception for the possessive singular form of ancient names. For example, one wouldn't place -'s after Moses or Achilles. Beyond that, there are other reputable sources that provide exceptions. Diana Hacker, in A Writer's Reference, and Kirszner and Mandell, in The Brief Holt Handbook, both claim that if pronunciation would be awkward with the added -'s, writers should use only the apostrophe. John E. Warriner, in English Grammar and Composition, comes right out and says that in these cases, writers should punctuate according to pronunciation.
:)

That's the thing, I don't think that Moseses would be an awkward pronunciation.:crazy

Wouldn't that pronunciation be in adherence to the original rule? Isn't its "awkwardness," in fact, a direct reflection of the misapplication of the rule in the first place, and the subsequent infrequency of our hearing it?

In this sense, isn't "awkward" usually just a euphemism (notice another peculiarity, the "a" as opposed to the "an" before a long "u" sound) for rare. And in terms of esoteric grammatical discussion, isn't "rare" often a euphemism for "correct.":laugh

So, by the transistive property, what do we have here?...


As you can tell, the way in which we arrive at conclusions, rules, laws and so forth is more interesting to me than the standards themselves.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Statistics, no way. :laugh

My undergraduate degree is in sociology. My MA is in Urban Studies. I woud really like to teach sociology through the lens of sports. If universities have sociology classes about "Sex and the City" and "The Sopranos," surely sports warrant sociology classes. I'm facinated by sports as microcosms of the societies in which they are played.



That's the thing, I don't think that Moseses would be an awkward pronunciation.:crazy

Wouldn't that pronunciation be in adherence to the original rule? Isn't its "awkwardness," in fact, a direct reflection of the misapplication of the rule in the first place, and the subsequent infrequency of our hearing it?

In this sense, isn't "awkward" usually just a euphemism (notice another peculiarity, the "a" as opposed to the "an" before a long "u" sound) for rare. And in terms of esoteric grammatical discussion, isn't "rare" often a euphemism for "correct.":laugh

So, by the transistive property, what do we have here?...


As you can tell, the way in which we arrive at conclusions, rules, laws and so forth is more interesting to me than the standards themselves.
I took a course called Psychology of Coaching as an undergrad. I don't think what you're trying to do is that far-fetched.

[SoxSon]

Statistics, no way. :laugh

My undergraduate degree is in sociology. My MA is in Urban Studies. I woud really like to teach sociology through the lens of sports. If universities have sociology classes about "Sex and the City" and "The Sopranos," surely sports warrant sociology classes. I'm facinated by sports as microcosms of the societies in which they are played.

Sounds very possible to me, for all that's worth. ;)



Wouldn't that pronunciation be in adherence to the original rule? Isn't its "awkwardness," in fact, a direct reflection of the misapplication of the rule in the first place, and the subsequent infrequency of our hearing it?

In this sense, isn't "awkward" usually just a euphemism (notice another peculiarity, the "a" as opposed to the "an" before a long "u" sound) for rare. And in terms of esoteric grammatical discussion, isn't "rare" often a euphemism for "correct.":laugh


I would think that "rare," in your example, would more often be used as a substitute for "incorrect," actually.
Part of my point in presenting sources which provide exceptions is to demonstrate that it simply isn't a hard and fast rule. It's wrong ever to think of language as static in any of its applications; if an exception to a rule of grammar is allowed, it's because we are tending away from its acceptance or we are tending towards its acceptance.

Earlier you had posted:

Yeah, but isn't that kind of like the dictionary including "nite." When something is done incorrectly enough, it becomes accepted, but we, individually, don't have to acknowledge that philosophy, right? Correct me if this is not an example of the "nite" phenomenon because I may be wrong. That's just my hypothesis.?

The evolution of language that I mentioned above can be highlighted by another response to this. I think it's always a narrow view of language to think of it in terms of "right" and "wrong" when it comes to rule deviations. Even what you call the "nite phenomenon" is an example of language tending towards precision (it doesn't always, interestingly enough, shrink itself). Once the "good" is understood in the word, it is embedded. The resulting "nite" makes much more sense to use, as it's concise and familiar.

The extra -s used so often on possessive singular nouns ending in -s is on a slow and sure decline, too, I'd guess. It's unnecessary to understand meaning, and in some cases, it's quite awkward. :)


P.S. We probably should get back to baseball before someone notices our discussion. :laugh

[digglahhh]

It's unnecessary to understand meaning, and in some cases, it's quite awkward. :)

Ah, this is where we differ... Standards are arbitrary,questioning why we choose one as opposed to the other though, that's where intellectual freedom is born.

I agree with your statements about language being fluid and changing. Language merely is a vessel for the person who is using it and reflective of the culture and society they are a part of, and there are infinite divisions thereof. I'm with you there, man.

The spirit of my point is different though. There is a difference between rejection and ignorance. Every idiot who doesn't know that his sentence requires a semi-colon isn't James Joyce... "Accepting" a rule must be viewed in opposition to rejecting it. Either choice has knowledge of the rule itself as a prerequisite. Not following the rule because you don't know it, doesn't have a place in this dichotomy.

If the people who are breeching the grammatical standards are unaware that they are doing so, I don't have to recognize their defiance as having any profundity. Perhaps, that view makes me elitist and in some respects I am. On one level, if anything should be subject to the lowest common denominator philosophy it shoud be language, because it should impose as few barriers to to accurate communication as possible. That's a utopian goal that will never be realized though, ask William Burroughs...

[SoxSon]

Ah, this is where we differ... Standards are arbitrary,questioning why we choose one as opposed to the other though, that's where intellectual freedom is born.

That's what I'm saying, though. We need to question why we follow arbitrary standards. Since language is fluid, it's highly unintellectual, in my mind, to believe that a standard like -'s on a singular possessive noun ending with -s is the standard of "right," which is (I thought) what you suggested earlier in the "goodnight" example. :confused:


The spirit of my point is different though. There is a difference between rejection and ignorance. Every idiot who doesn't know that his sentence requires a semi-colon isn't James Joyce... "Accepting" a rule must be viewed in opposition to rejecting it, Not following the rule because you don't know it, doesn't have a place in this dichotomy.

That's an entirely different discussion than the one we were having about possessive singular nouns. "Acceptance" or "rejection" of any rule of language can only be viewed as fair when done with understanding, of course. The spirit of my posts here has nothing to do with forgiving ignorance.

[digglahhh]

I only brought up the issue of acceptance because you were talking about us moving away from the acceptance of a certain rule.

Who's moving away from it, and why?

Is there a case as to why it should be changed? Are those devoted to the study and use of language moving away from it? Do those people still believe in the rule, but are giving up hope that most will learn and use the rule and hence moving away from it themselves?

Right and wrong is a poor choice of lexicon for what we are talking about, agreed.

Maybe no practical reason is needed for a shift in preferred variations of language and grammar, but then what is behind them? Is that move rooted sociologically, politically? If it is, there is a practical reason for somebody. Its just likely that that somebody is not in the language community.

This is not the case where something like this would be likely to occur. So why then would a move away from the rule occur? Catering to the ignorant is the best hypothesis I can posit.

[SoxSon]

I only brought up the issue of acceptance because you were talking about us moving away from the acceptance of a certain rule.

Who's moving away from it, and why?

Oh, now I gotcha, I think. I was speaking societally. We're moving away from it because that's how language evolves. It really is out of our hands (by "our," I mean yours and mine).


Is there a case as to why it should be changed? Are those devoted to the study and use of language moving away from it? Do those people still believe in the rule, but are giving up hope that most will learn and use the rule and hence moving away from it themselves?


That's a good question. I think the case (aside from the issue of language "shrinking" that I mentioned before, which is the single biggest reason for it to fade) for its changing can probably best be found in the fact that it didn't exist before. It's a peculiar addition to the English language.

Those devoted to the study and use of language are either traditionalists firmly in the camp of changing nothing ever, or they are purposely moving away from it. I can't speak on one small rule with any authority, but my gut feeling is that the majority of linguists right now are moving away from it. Remember that belief in a rule of grammar is beholden to its usage (not something traditionalists like to hear), and that the acceptance and understanding of a rule of grammar by a population will ultimately decide its fate. Those who believe in a rule of grammar have no power over its usage once they're dead. I hope you follow my meaning.


Maybe no practical reason is needed for a shift in preferred variations of language and grammar, but then what is behind them? Is that move rooted sociologically, politically? If it is, there is a practical reason for somebody. Its just likely that that somebody is not in the language community.
Catering to the ignorant is the best hypothesis I can posit.

I noticed that I've answered most of these questions already, but just to add a little something: It's always a traditionalist's perspective that catering to the ignorant is a factor in the evolution of language, and it's fine to feel that way. However, one must consider a population in its entirety when thinking linguistics; it should become apparent that a language never belongs to the elite few who generally claim ownership. It can never belong to a few, period. That's the basic nature of language.

[digglahhh]

I noticed that I've answered most of these questions already, but just to add a little something: It's always a traditionalist's perspective that catering to the ignorant is a factor in the evolution of language, and it's fine to feel that way. However, one must consider a population in its entirety when thinking linguistics; it should become apparent that a language never belongs to the elite few who generally claim ownership. It can never belong to a few, period. That's the basic nature of language.

Right, that's what is really interesting about it. Those who devote themselves to language and profess themselves, or are considered, authorities (at least, relatively speaking) have the least control over how it develops. I believe that I stated earlier that the elitist perspective is rather meaningless and self-indulgent because language is a function-first medium and merely a means of communication. If esoteric rules obscure that function, they need to go because they do not serve to aid in language's primary purpose.

Ironically, as one expands their understanding of language and the unique identity of words, they begin to search for the "perfect" way of phrasing something. One of two negative side effects frequently occur from that development. One pitfall is that the nuance that was carefully considered when choosing specific wording is completely lost on the reader and rendered moot. The other is that the writer's quest leads him down the road of obscurity resulting in pedantic composition that ends up alienating and minimizing his audience. The latter is why modern academia is so dry and unappealing to most students.

Knowing the difference between "less" and "fewer" is something that some people may think makes us special or "smart." But, that just makes us the Harlem Globetrotters of language. The circus tricks entertain the crowd, but it's the baskets that win games. If all that funky dribbing doesn't help you get a better shot, what's the point? Without reminding ourselves that communication is at the center of it all, we are likely to indulge ourselves until we are the ones who become incomprehensible.

To finally bring it all back to the original topic, and this is what I said in my first reply, the question about "chat speak," or any issue, is whether or not it poses an obstacle to comprehension. In this case, there is not much "saved" by using chat speak, so if it undermines effective communication at all, it's probably not worth using.

[VTSoxFan]

I just want to say that, as a fan of the beauty, versatility and above all the power of language, I find this conversation fascinating.

Have either of you ever read The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way by Bill Bryson? I think you'd like it.

[SoxSon]

I just want to say that, as a fan of the beauty, versatility and above all the power of language, I find this conversation fascinating.

Have either of you ever read The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way by Bill Bryson? I think you'd like it.


I'm glad you've enjoyed the thread, Annie. When I saw that you had posted here, I felt certain that it must be an effort to get us back to baseball! :laugh

I actually have read Bryson. He's quirky and anecdotal, and now that you've brought it up, the book does remind me a bit of this thread. I don't generally get to discuss my vocation here on BBF, so it's been a nice change of pace for me. :)

[digglahhh]

I just want to say that, as a fan of the beauty, versatility and above all the power of language, I find this conversation fascinating.

Have either of you ever read The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way by Bill Bryson? I think you'd like it.

I have not read it, but I will put in on my list.

[Madviewer]

Gashouse6, can you please post a link to the threads you've found these in?

AG1, would you mind not attempting to irritate someone by using language that they're complaining about? You may find it funny, but I don't.

Since this is a baseball forum, rather than some chat room, please use proper English, including full words with minimal abbreviation, especially of the "chat" variety.

RUOK Just had to sign on here to post that to you

[Madviewer]

I find it odd that when people find other peoples behaviour or actions annoying they want them to change. To me its like an old man yelling at the sky because its raining.

Once you go down the path of changing other peoples ways you expose to others changing your ways.

I'm a strong live and let live person. If you're reading somebodies posts and you find them annoying or grating heres a hint on what to do. Stop reading the post! If you are getting nothing of value from a posters words then don't read their posts, getting them to write in perfect english is not going to change the value of their post, it's just going to take longer to read. Almost nothing has ever been gained by pointing out a flaw in somebodies grammar, spelling, or writing style.VGP Very good post sir,if more people thought like you it'd me a much better place.

[Captain Cold Nose]

VGP Very good post sir,if more people thought like you it'd me a much better place.

Are you here with the intentions of discussing baseball or are you just dropping in to snidely comment on a long, ongoing thread that really hadn't been discussed in over a year and a half?

[Mattingly]

RUOK Just had to sign on here to post that to you
RUOK = Are you Okay?

If so, then might I ask the reason for this thread being dug up after 19 months?

[Madviewer]

RUOK = Are you Okay?

If so, then might I ask the reason for this thread being dug up after 19 months?
i just read it OK, All I was trying to do was to get you to lighten-up , "why be so critical of people that might not be as smart as yourself." The LOL's & RUOK's help some of us. Read Ubiquitous's Post that I also replyed to. np though guess I got a li'll ticked at your Post. sorry,I came on here looking for baseball threads.

[Mattingly]

i just read it OK, All I was trying to do was to get you to lighten-up , "why be so critical of people that might not be as smart as yourself." The LOL's & RUOK's help some of us. Read Ubiquitous's Post that I also replyed to. np though guess I got a li'll ticked at your Post. sorry,I came on here looking for baseball threads.
I'm fine as far as being OK. I still don't know why you re-opened a thread that had been dormant for the past 19 months.

I'm not trying to be critical, nor do I claim to be smarter than anyone else here. I'm just trying to get my question answered.

[AutographCollector]

Brad,
this thread should be closed anyways.

[Mattingly]

Might as well. I figured that the person digging up old threads could've replied within the few days given a chance to do so, but that forumer hasn't come around yet.

Closing.