Society/Culture People who constantly point out grammar mistakes are pretty much jerks,

[little graham]

http://www.sciencealert.com/people-...mmar-mistakes-are-kinda-jerks-scientists-find

More research is now needed to confirm these links, but for now, take comfort in the fact that typos can happen to everyone, but it takes a particular type of person (jerk) to constantly point them out to you.

Small sample size, but everyone who's ever been picked up by the grammar Nazis on this forum would relate to what they're saying the science points to.

 

[skilts]

http://www.sciencealert.com/people-...mmar-mistakes-are-kinda-jerks-scientists-find



Small sample size, but everyone who's ever been picked up by the grammar Nazis on this forum would relate to what they're saying the science points to.

I detect a hint of vested interest here. However, I agree with your general point. The purpose of communication is, well, to communicate ideas. If this is achieved, then it is successful, the only criterion.

 

[Windhover]

http://www.sciencealert.com/people-...mmar-mistakes-are-kinda-jerks-scientists-find



Small sample size, but everyone who's ever been picked up by the grammar Nazis on this forum would relate to what they're saying the science points to.

The headline of the article, and its conclusion:-

"More research is now needed to confirm these links, but for now, take comfort in the fact that typos can happen to everyone, but it takes a particular type of person to constantly point them out to you."

are just plain ridiculous.

First, for someone to be "constantly" pointing out typos there would either have to be a constant supply of typos to make the point. As if.

And what sort of "fact" is it to say "that typos can happen to everyone". Well duh. Of course they might happen to anyone of us (the logical extension of the factum). That is beside the point. Typos will happen particularly for those who are lazy in their expression and this is frequently combined with sloppiness in thinking. So why would anyone prone to making typos "take comfort" in the thought that others, less prone and more critical, might at some time "be caught out".

And don't even get me started on how we determine who is a more or less agreeable person, still less why categorising people in such a way matters in at all ffs. So no, "more research" is not needed. It is a big case of who cares.



Not that I am being overly pikcy.

 

[JamesJoe]

The headline of the article, and its conclusion:-

"More research is now needed to confirm these links, but for now, take comfort in the fact that typos can happen to everyone, but it takes a particular type of person to constantly point them out to you."

are just plain ridiculous.

First, for someone to be "constantly" pointing out typos there would either have to be a constant supply of typos to make the point. As if.

And what sort of "fact" is it to say "that typos can happen to everyone". Well duh. Of course they might happen to anyone of us (the logical extension of the factum). That is beside the point. Typos will happen particularly for those who are lazy in their expression and this is frequently combined with sloppiness in thinking. So why would anyone prone to making typos "take comfort" in the thought that others, less prone and more critical, might at some time "be caught out".

And don't even get me started on how we determine who is a more or less agreeable person, still less why categorising people in such a way matters in at all ffs. So no, "more research" is not needed. It is a big case of who cares.



Not that I am being overly pikcy.

LOL you make some nice sweeping generalisations in this post. Especially about why people make more grammar mistakes than others.

 

[plastikman]

They are 'grammatical mistakes' not 'grammar mistakes'.

 

[skilts]

Not that I am being overly pikcy.

Are you sure you're not away with the pikcys?

Admittedly, the holes in the quoted research are large enough to accomodate a pantechnicon. Despite that, I think this a topic worthy of discussion.

As a wise man once said, "There is no such thing as writing, only re-writing." Not unreasonably, most on BF don't write as if for publication.

 

[Lester Burnham]

I detect a hint of vested interest here. However, I agree with your general point. The purpose of communication is, well, to communicate ideas. If this is achieved, then it is successful, the only criterion.

Your last comma should have been a colon. As a result I was unable to understand your whole post.

Are you sure you're not away with the pikcys?

I ******* hate pikcys.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

What's with the comma at the end of the thread topic?

 

[Procrastinator35]

It's nice to see scientists spending our taxation money & scholarship $, on such worthwhile pursuits.

 

[skilts]

Your last comma should have been a colon. As a result I was unable to understand your whole post.



I ******* hate pikcys.

Unfortunately, I've recently had a colonoscopy.

I always know who's been away with the pikcys, because I'm one of the people they visit. It's my job to keep tabs on attendances.

 

[JackOutback]

I detect a hint of vested interest here. However, I agree with your general point. The purpose of communication is, well, to communicate ideas. If this is achieved, then it is successful, the only criterion.

But how long until grammatical mistakes obscure the point being made? Language provides a common ground for communication; while small mistakes don't threaten that communication, larger mistakes that become too common can.

I can't remember how many times I've seen someone refer to a 'mute point'. If this becomes too common, people will not understand the purpose of the phrase.

 

[EagleShore]

Constantly pointing them out is a waste of time and indeed a bit of a strange thing to do. However, while using BigFooty I must admit that I'm a little disheartened by the endemic grammatical and spelling errors.

Their, they're, and there have become interchangeable, but such errors have always been common. Since using BigFooty though, I've noticed an even more annoying example - using "his" instead of "he's" and vice versa. It really isn't that difficult to get them correct.

 

[skilts]

But how long until grammatical mistakes obscure the point being made? Language provides a common ground for communication; while small mistakes don't threaten that communication, larger mistakes that become too common can.

I can't remember how many times I've seen someone refer to a 'mute point'. If this becomes too common, people will not understand the purpose of the phrase.

Where language has become unintelligible, the communication has been unsuccessful, and has therefore not achieved its purpose. However, the relevant meanings where they're, there, their are used/misused for instance, should be obvious to all but the most hidebound pedant. To feign confusion and embrace superiority in such cases is self-indulgent and ultimately futile.

 

[JackOutback]

Where language has become unintelligible, the communication has been unsuccessful, and has therefore not achieved its purpose. However, the relevant meanings where they're, there, their are used/misused for instance, should be obvious to all but the most hidebound pedant. To feign confusion and embrace superiority in such cases is self-indulgent and ultimately futile.

The point remains, how far can a word/phrase be twisted until people are not sure of its proper meaning? Using my above example, if someone refers to a mute point, I can simply shrug my shoulders and accept that they mean moot point. But someone who is not familiar with the phrase will not understand its point. That doesn't mean the whole communication is unintelligible, but that aspect of it is. And most people won't seek out clarification, they will just let it slide.

Also, what is with the attitude towards being corrected anyway? That's how we learn. I agree people shouldn't be rude or condescending, but correcting grammar or spelling doesn't mean one is a jerk, maybe they are actually trying to help.

I mean, it's unlikely on Big Footy, but elsewhere

 

[CM86]

i dont no why people had problems with this i agree entirely that it is a issue for example when i wrote a piece and someone will tell me its wrong because i didnt no

 

[Pie eyed]

http://www.sciencealert.com/people-...mmar-mistakes-are-kinda-jerks-scientists-find



Small sample size, but everyone who's ever been picked up by the grammar Nazis on this forum would relate to what they're saying the science points to.

Only thread worthy to the illiterate who feel repressed by their own ignorance.
The fact they feel so threatened by a little grammatical correction is evidence enough of their tunnel vision.
Most would succumb to natural selection in a world without social support.
Not our problem.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Only thread worthy to the illiterate who feel repressed by their own ignorance.
The fact they feel so threatened by a little grammatical correction is evidence enough of their tunnel vision.
Most would succumb to natural selection in a world without social support.
Not our problem.

Clearly, big footy lies at the bottom of the food-chain.

 

[Pie eyed]

Clearly, big footy lies at the bottom of the food-chain.

There is no hyphen in "food chain"...........

Got you again you smart city bastards...............

 

[Procrastinator35]

There is no hyphen in "food chain"...........

Got you again you smart city bastards...............

There's nothing worse than an uppity Magpie.

 

[Pie eyed]

I wasn't so uppity last weekend, this ones been better.

 

[Fire]

The headline talks about grammar, but the extract talks about typos.

Which one is it genius?

 

[Fire]

Their, they're, and there have become interchangeable, but such errors have always been common. Since using BigFooty though, I've noticed an even more annoying example - using "his" instead of "he's" and vice versa. It really isn't that difficult to get them correct.

My personal dislike is the use of 'of' interchanged with 'have' in sentances like 'should of'

I'm guessing this is because people mistake the abbreviation 'should've'. And have never read a book to discover their misunderstanding for themselves.

 

[JackOutback]

My personal dislike is the use of 'of' interchanged with 'have' in sentances like 'should of'

I'm guessing this is because people mistake the abbreviation 'should've'. And have never read a book to discover their misunderstanding for themselves.

That and the phrase 'versing' (as in, which team are we versing this weekend) are my personal bugbears.

 

[little graham]

It's nice to see scientists spending our taxation money & scholarship $, on such worthwhile pursuits.

They're next study is something to do about people criticizing science expenditure are pretty much religious nuts...

 

[Procrastinator35]

They're next study is something to do about people criticizing science expenditure are pretty much religious nuts...

Can't wait for that one.