Yeh, I said it, and I mean it.
Grammar is the internal logic of a language. Deriding those who espouse good grammar and point out bad grammar is equivalent to deriding logic, indeed reasoning.
Most who vomit up stupid comments about “grammar Nazis” also claim English is inconsistent and illogical in its grammar and, indeed, in its spelling of words, massive numbers of words that either look (when written) or sound alike but mean different things, etc. *meh* That’s either because they are butt-lazy illiterates or want to encourage butt-lazy illiteracy for their own nefarious purposes.
Understanding the internal logic of English (its grammar) requires something more than a “literacy” comprised of the ability to laboriously puzzle out what words those funny lil squiggles are and assign (often incorrect) simplistic meanings to them; it requires the reading of a lot (no, much more than you think “a lot” means!) of well-written text, an interest in what the words in that text actually mean or meant when the writer committed them to paper, and a cultivated ability to actually think.
Those three conditions are not met by at least 99.999. . .n% of the Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind who are the primary corrupters of English nowadays. Let one very small example from a CNN chiron this morning stand as a typical example. Referring to Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe:
“. . .his own party said they will move to impeach him if he didn’t [sic] resign by the deadline.”
When someone cannot even keep past-present-future clear, one is safe to assume that that “someone” is a self-made moron. And such is the nature of the influence on the English language that the Hivemind exerts: teaching a-rational thought processes, by inundation with example after example.
Sidebar: when in soi-disant “adult” company, I do sometimes become a wee tad irritated by neo-Victorian Bowdlerizers who define anything that offends their po’ widdle feewings as “cussing.” *meh* It’s my curse just barely more than literate. . . unlike the neo-Victorian Bowdlerizers who are almost universally very nearly illiterate.
N.B. Sometimes a vulgar term is the best term to describe something/someone. Just sayin’.
Reading a book today that is. . . amusing. It’s supposed to be an action-packed “thriller” set “25 Years from now” (whenever THAT is) that’s chock full of “advanced tech” and “cutting edge science.”
That’s really funny. The “advanced tech” still relies on USB cables, and the “cutting edge science” is a “Dan Brown stupidity level” misunderstanding of everything from string theory to tachyons to time travel.
If it weren’t for lotsa laughs, I’d say the writer isn’t just trying but very trying. *heh*
Oh, on top of that, the writer pads the word count by having much of the dialog in both French and English (the English for the illiterates who either don’t own any French vocabulary or can’t work the meanings out via linguistic roots, I suppose).
I’ve been reading an eARC by invitation today (the invitation consisting of a request to not[e] (Thanks Colin!) errors that “might have slipped by” editing/proofreading, and submit them via email before final publication). Most of the errors have been either homophonic (such as “peak” for “pique”) or mistakenly writing compound words as two separate words, with only a few actual word misuses not attributable to homophonic errors.
Almost all the mistakes are likely due to the writer having a larger _verbal_ vocabulary than is available in written form to the writer. This can really only be mended by more reading of well-written text by the writer. Until then, the writer is at the mercy of editors and proofreaders whose (and that was one: using “whose” when “who’s” was required) literacy may well–as seems to be the case with this eARC–be no better than the writer’s own.
Oh, and LOADS of misplaced commas, as well as just plain old everyday missing commas. VERY few comma splices, though. That’s nice.
Now, there are likely a number of problems I have not made note of for the writer, since I am NOT line-editing this book but just noting things that jump out at me. Line editing is demanding work, and I’d have to charge for that.
Seen elsewhere (and very slightly redacted to obscure the source):
“If I would have [sic] known I would have went [sic] there. . . “1
*head-desk* This is what passes for literacy in our society today. When such garbled gibberish can actually pass an editor and be published, it’s no wonder folks are so badly under-mis-disinformed: they are unable, based on the evidence of speech and writing, to even think straight.
1While I cannot imagine either of my readers *heh* scratching their heads over my comments on this sentence, here:
“If I had known, I would have gone there.”
Just about no matter where I go on the Interwebs (a few bloggers aside), I have from time to time been chastised by poorly-read folks for my vocabulary. Hey, lazy-asses! I work HARD to dumb it down for you!
I have seen this several times, including in Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind “reports,” and while I celebrate what folks are trying to say, I find it distressing to see such widespread evidence of subliteracy that apostrophe abuse like this demonstrates. Think it through. “Apostrophe + s” indicates either possession or a contraction of the noun with a verb e.g. is, has, was). The former is nonsense here. If this were to indicate the latter, then it would still be nonsense, because not only would it be nonsense, but IF the possessive form of the plural of “Bundy” were used, it would be be the proper plural form (Bundys) followed by an apostrophe: Bundys’.
This is just basic literacy. Writing nonsense English indicates a stunted ability to understand written English. But, of course. . .
. . . in English, at least. One stand-out giveaway that some wannabe writer is both pretentious and a lazy subliterate: using subjective case pronouns as objects, rather than using the proper objective case.
Typically, these sorts of poorly-read, poorly-educated boobs use I, she, and he in place of the correct me, her, and him as objects of verbs or prepositions, apparently thinking it sounds “classy” or at least that it is correct. Some even rationalize it, when confronted, with an argument of an assumed subsequent verb that would convert the object into a subject, but that’s just a back-formed excuse.
There are many such examples of simply execrable grammar, syntax, and word misusage that are hallmarks of subliterate pretensions to literacy, but this one is a dead giveaway. Such wannabe writers should–and would, if they had any worthwhile ethics whatsoever–enroll in remedial English classes, and keep taking the classes until they are able to at least pass the course.
Saw a “meme” calling for the tearing down of a statue of Lenin, because he was responsible for “starving five million Ukranians in one year!” *sigh* Boggled my mind. I related that to my (librarian) Wonder Woman and she had the same reaction I did: “Get your facts right!” Yeh, in 1921, Lenin had grain shipped from Ukraine to Moscow (food shortage in Moscow was the stated reason) for a while, but relented when Ukranians experenced a drought. Eight years AFTER Lenin died (1932) STALIN began his program of deliberately starving Ukraine into submission. Low end estimates of deaths: ~7,000,000. Stalin, not Lenin.
Gee, I thought EVERYONE knew this stuff. . . but I mistakenly attributed a higher level of literacy to “everyone” than I should have.
This kind of stuff ain’t rocket science. Folks have to work really hard to be this ignorant.
Building an AR-15 Under 5 Pounds
Nice article, and reads like a nice build. I do lack a bit of confidence in their math, though, given that the build they were comparing to was 5lb5oz and ~$3,500 while the 4lb13oz build was “slightly more than $1,800, nearly half the price of the carbine in the article that spawned this exercise.”
“[N]early half the price”? No, slightly MORE than half the price. “Nearly” implies “almost” or “not quite,” and $1,800 is more than half of $3,500.
Numbers. Language. Not strong suits for this writer.