Above: "the toughest RK diagram I ever created (from the U.S. Declaration of Independence)" by iBeth, everyday reflections of an academic mom.The exchange at Pretty Lady's post Grammar Patrol has me flipping and flopping. Am I wrong in seeing an essential conservative/liberal root to all this?
Isn't communication the fundamental goal? I suppose details like the many meanings of "reification" is essential to someone like me who treats abstractions as if they were concrete, (and I'm talking about day to day abstractions like why paper money has value as well as how the emoticon ;) functions as a knowing wink) but isn't there an element of fascism, exclusion, or denial of entropy to some of these rules?
Remember this e-mail?:
O lny srmat poelpe can raed tihs. cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at CmabrigdeUinervtisy, it deosnt mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses itll raed wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
On a related tangent, read about Oregon's plain language bill:
"The bill calls on all executive branch agencies to begin writing forms, manuals, letters, e-mails and other communications in the plain-language standard of communication.
Plain language means short, easy-to-understand sentences, everyday language and documents designed to be easily read and understood. More simply, it means an end to the confusing bureaucratic and legal jargon that plagues our government documents and forms."
And back to the exchange at Pretty Lady, I find myself thinking of O'Reilly's Blogger Code of Conduct. Meaning and nuance are to be danced with, not resolved. That was some good readin'. Thanks especially to Fish or Cut Bait's staff members Chris and Jacques.
5 comments:
Isn't communication the fundamental goal?
This is exactly why I'm on the side of clarity in writing, including proper spelling and grammar. It's possible to read that stupidly (yet carefully) misspelled e-mail message, but it's difficult. And after you've expended the effort, what do you have?
I understand about the occasional typo, and even the most careful of us have their blind spots (I always have to pause to remember if vacuum has one or two cees in it), but there's a point where mistakes slip over into laziness, ignorance, or both.
I also understand that spelling and grammar don't relate directly to intelligence, so I'm being overly picky.
So I see both sides to some degree. But setting aside simple grammar and spelling, words like "reify" and other nuggets from the postmodern lexicon are really only used to make it more difficult to figure out what the writers are saying. Mainly because if you do work out what they're saying, you'll find it's bullshit. So any use of words like reify, historicity, signifier, deracinate, and so on immediately tell me the writer is full of crap.
I mean, I'm no expert on poststructuralism. I haven't read widely in the field. But everything I have read just screams "academic wanking!"
I am extremely irritated by misspelled words and poor grammar. It's probably my slightly obsessive nature but I can't concentrate on what I am reading if my mind feels the need to continually "fix" errors.
Of course typos happen and there are a few word usages that can get a bit tricky and I can't remember all of them either, but usually, most mistakes can be corrected with the use of the spell checker and a real life dictionary.
I see that people often use "loose" instead of "lose" often and that may be my biggest pet peeve ever. I know that spell checker won't catch it but sheesh, two different words entirely!
I know, I know. . . you people are right.
Its just that I am so painterly challengend at the moment, I see no way that I could figure-out writing in my lifetime. I am thankfull that you two don't hold it against me.
I still think "signifier" and "reify" are usefull words. I've never managed to even say "historicity" out loud, let alone get a grip on it. I don't recognize "deracinate".
plucked up by the roots
cool word. great title.
Steven, I think your writing is good and very expressive, yet still readable. I may not always know what the heck you are talking about but I think that's an issue on my end, not yours:)
Post a Comment