Disappointment with the grammar and spelling of some TA users

I've noticed that many of the forum discussions that TA has tweeted lately have contained glaring grammatical and spelling errors.  I find this disappointing and even personally embarrassing as it inevitably reflects not only on the original poster but on the forum as a whole and, by extension, the larger atheist community.  I know written communication isn't everything, and it certainly isn't a high priority among the public generally, but we should try to meet a higher standard.  Given the unlikelihood that individual posters will suddenly take more care when writing, I think the operators of the site's Twitter feed should consider not tweeting discussion titles with serious errors.

That's one poster's opinion, for whatever it's worth.

Tags: grammar, spelling

Views: 2989

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I ask again, what are you referring to?

It's improper to end a sentence with a preposition - I believe the correct query would be, "to what are you referring?"

Umm, I believe most modern grammarians have dropped the rule about not ending sentences with prepositions, except perhaps in academic writing.

Anyway, I heard a story once about someone criticizing Churchill for ending a sentence with a preposition, to which he is said to have quipped, "This is a situation up with which I will not put!"

RE: "I believe most modern grammarians have dropped the rule about not ending sentences with prepositions, except perhaps in academic writing."

OMG - are you saying that the English language is evolving? SAY it isn't so!:-O surprise

We forgive you and will love you anyway.

Now don't be speakin' fer all of us like that, pardner. :)


I agree.

The evolution line gets pulled out a bit too easily.   It really only makes a point against those that adopt an extremely proscriptive approach to language.  I believe most people fall somewhere in the middle ground.  Language is symbolic representation.  In order for it to work, there has to be some consensus on what the symbols mean.  By that logic, language has to be more proscriptive than descriptive.  Even errors or intentional novel usage typically only works because it reflects standard usage closely enough that readers can make sense of it.

It is largely the same with organic evolution.  From generation to generation we know that most of the genetic information is copied directly from the parents.  Mutations and gene expression errors do occur, but in most cases they are deleterious.  Wide scale changes or errors are almost certainly going to be fatal.  Some degree of change and diversity is required for the health of the species, but a great deal of stability is also required.

Some have even defended this illiteracy as part of the evolutionary growth of language.

OK, I'll bite, this time. To whom are you referring?

I'm referring to all of those who defend misuse because this is how language changes such that the mistake of today might be the standard English of tomorrow.

I used that crap argument in high school when my english teachers graded my papers unfavorably.

Good for them.

Ah, defending "misuse" makes more sense to me than defending "illiteracy". 

I won't defend intentional illiteracy, but I do appreciate intelligent "misuse".


Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service