Grammar, spelling and proof-reading.

"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English).

-Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

So, I've been called a "Grammar Nazi" in the past, and all kinds of variations on that tired old theme. I like people to be readable. I have no qualms about people writing in different idioms and using contracted and evolved words (I regularly use words like "wanna" and "kinda" and "mo"). I positively encourage people to use "made-up" words (I love the Urban Dictionary). What I do not like is bad practice that confuses meaning and confounds expression. "ur" is not an evolution of language. "i" is very much bad practice.

The beauty of language is that you can use it to mean exactly what you want and that said meaning can be multiple. The decoding of language should not be focused on what you are saying, but on what you mean.

The internet is (mostly) a text-based medium and so you would think that people would take care to make sure it is known exactly what they are saying and what they might mean. Unfortunately, this is most often not the case. I will often chastise people about errors and encourage them to proof-read their work. I do this, not only because it encourages good practice, but because the way you write online sets the tone of how people will perceive what you are saying. In the same way that I am writing this in a somewhat formal style (without words like "gonna"), CAPITALS OVERTLY EMPHASISE THINGS, and things like (possibly intentional) spelling or punctuation errors result in the intelligence level you present dropping.

My problem is not that people aren't speaking correct English, it's that they aren't making clear what they are saying.

One thing that majorly gets to me is a lack of proof-reading. One or two errors in a piece of writing is understandable, but constant errors suggest you haven't read through what you've written. If you don't care enough to read what you've said, why should I care about what you have to say? Also, proof-reading is not only for catching mistakes. It should be used to work on how well you convey your meaning. If you don't proof-read, how do you know how your writing works as a whole? A piece of writing relies on the interpretation of the reader. If you're not a reader yourself, how can you know what that interpretation could be?

To finish this off, I'll leave you with a talk by Erin McKean. If you've read Ubuntu Music, then you should know of TED Talks. This talk is most definitely my favourite talk they have on offer. Not just because it's fun and entertaining, but because Erin has some brilliant views on the evolution and use of words.




Think of words as children. Allow them to grow and evolve and do exciting and interesting things with them. But, please, for the love of God, don't abuse them.

Alice in popular culture sighting no. 8: On tonight's "Friday night with Jonathon Ross", Noel Fielding (of The Mighty Boosh) talked about Bruce Forsyth and mentioned that "Play Your Cards Right" had big playing cards "like Alice in Wonderland".

Alice in popular culture sighting no. 9: On Channel 5 tonight, a show called "Valley of the Sex Dolls" featured someone (I didn't catch her name) from S.I.R. Video Productions who had a tattoo of the Cheshire Cat (the Disney version) on her upper right arm.

-Alice

Penguin-wrapper philosophy

4 years ago, while commenting on The Matrix: Reloaded, I made this comment: "Random Bible references and penguin-wrapper philosophy do not a good movie make". I then proceeded to define it on Urban Dictionary as "Philosophical phrases that everyone knows and groans whenever they hear it. Much like the jokes on penguin wrappers".

I was reminded of this phrase earlier when I read a piece called "The Paradox Of Our Time". It was credited to George Carlin. Leaving aside the mis-credit, I want to look at what it says.

"The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints."

These are not paradoxes. Having tall buildings does not contradict people having short tempers and the same goes for wide freeways and narrow minds. Also these are not facts. These are generalisations without frames of reference. I know of many short buildings and patient people and the same goes for narrow roads and open-minds.

Of course, this is all intended as artistic license and metaphor for saying that while we have made progress in things like science, we haven't made progress in being good people. Bullshit. You're trying to say that the foundation of charitable organisations isn't progress? The demolition of the Berlin wall wasn't progress? But then, whether I agree with these statements and generalisations is not the point.

This is what people do. They write some puns and hang them on the frame of their own moral agenda. They send it out in an e-mail and people read it and think for a second and maybe feel bad about themselves enough that they actually do something (though actually most will probably decide they've already "done something", they're a "good person"). This is a manifesto in an "Ironic" style.

This is penguin-wrapper philosophy and I'm aware that calling it such is itself a penguin-wrapper statement.

-Alice