Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site frog.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!frog!wjr
From: wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert)
Newsgroups: net.singles,net.nlang
Subject: Grammar and Spelling on the Net
Message-ID: <658@frog.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Feb-86 19:19:03 EST
Article-I.D.: frog.658
Posted: Thu Feb 13 19:19:03 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 06:08:08 EST
References: <235@pttesac.UUCP> <33100034@ISM780.UUCP>
Reply-To: wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert)
Organization: The Church of the Holy Starship
Lines: 52
Xref: watmath net.singles:10290 net.nlang:4161
Summary: 

In article <33100034@ISM780.UUCP> dianeh@ISM780.UUCP writes:
>Poor grammar, on the other hand, usually bothers me. There are those
>rare gems that actaully work, like "You're good -- you're awful good."
>or some of the Tom Frye postings, which are clearly dialect (at least I
>hope they are :-)). Unfortunately, poor grammar more often just makes the
>person sound stupid and tends to make me immediately prejudiced against
>any validity their statements might otherwise have. I suppose one of the
>reasons it bothers me is that this is our *language* -- it's what we've
>agreed to use to communicate to one another. If it didn't have some
>structure, some agreed upon forms and rules, we wouldn't even be able to
>come as close as we do (which, admittedly, isn't very) to understanding
>one another. If a person can't take the time to learn their own language,
>to learn about verb agreement or syntax, it just seems damn lazy to me.
>English is a rich, open language; it allows for and adapts to our changing
>needs, but abusing that, letting the language deteriorate into mush,
>seems wasteful and inexcusable.

Non-standard grammar only bothers me when it's impossible to figure
out what the poster actually _meant_.  (BTW, Tom Frye _speaks_
standard English....) And in general, unintentionally poor grammar
causes me to devalue the entire posting.

However, Usenet is a conversational medium in written form.  As such,
it invites us to write in conversational mode.  When I _write_ for
publication or evaluation by strangers, I attempt to conform to those
standards.  When I'm discussing something with friends, I may
deliberately torture the language until it carries the right set of
meta-statements.

Compare

"You haven't seen anything yet!" to

"You ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

I probably would choose the former in a job-application cover letter;
I can't imagine _saying_ anything but the inelegantly emphatic latter
in conversation.  

Perhaps we are evolving toward an intermediate form, neither formal
written language nor conversational.  Any comments?

(If this line of discussion diverges from net.nlang's interests,
PLEASE edit the newsgroup line to leave them out.)

				STella Calvert

		Every man and every woman is a star.

Guest on:	...!decvax!frog!wjr
Life:		Baltimore!AnnArbor!Smyrna!<LotsOfHitchhikingAndShortVisits>
			!SantaCruz!Berkeley!AnnArbor!Taxachusetts
Future:			...	(!L5!TheBelt!InterstellarSpace)