Most people I've spent time with using English as their second language have asked me to correct their English wherever possible so that they can learn.
I agree to a point but if you do it publicly and too much then you will find they tend to say less or express themselves more simply which is counter productive. Its also important that you mention they have asked first.
If you're the type that spent Iong evenings holed up in your room as a child instead of out learning important social skills for later life, such as knowing when it's appropriate to correct someone's grammar, spelling etc. or not, then welcome! You'll be amongst friends here.
How do you manage when you are abroad and not 100% fluent in the particular language? Keep quiet or just shout loudly in your perfect English?
How's that relevant? I'd gladly be corrected if I made a blatant howler in a foreign language.
Some people might communicate differently to you for all sorts of reasons, to label them as lazy or stupid without the context is equally lazy and stupid (and snobbish).
Where have I done either?
Come again?
There are two examples of common, blatant grammatical errors in there. How is that related to dyslexia? Serious question. I think people just trot out "I'm dyslexic" for not knowing the correct word. I know it's an awful condition, as roper's link and posts show (and roper - I wasn't detracting from that), just that it's overused as a diagnosis.
I think people just trot out "I'm dyslexic" for not knowing the correct word. I know it's an awful condition, as roper's link and posts show (and roper - I wasn't detracting from that), just that it's overused as a diagnosis.
Agreed in full. Mrs CFH is [i]very[/i] dyslexic, if there can be such a thing. When stressed, she could spell "cat" as "pxxlhyyupnnsayyflxxssqq" and it would make perfect sense to her. She knows the difference between "should have" and "should of", however, as being dyslexic doesn't mean your thick, doesn't mean you don't understand grammar, etc. She gets more than a little angered when people trot out dyslexia as some sort of excuse for not being able to use language properly.
There's a difference between "conversational" and "wrong" though,
Is there ? Do we all have to be like you?Reading this I was , like, so livid, literally
You know what this means so really why GAS?
and if people know that they're using the incorrect form of a word, but do so in the name of being 'conversational' they're even more idiotic than people who correct them!
I think you are confusing folk who dont care with uptight, regimented anal types who care about every tiny detail as it causes them distress to see some'thing out of place- see what i did there 😉
For those of you with high literacy skills, who also seem to lack basic social skills,
Just read all of that, and I'm afraid I still think "I'm dyslexic" is used as a catch all for any form of inability to write properly.
We thank you for proving the point re social skills - face palm
you should of [ i am loving this BTW] worked as hard on your empathy/ your comprehension as you what you had done have on your grammar 🙄
See no matter how silly I get you still know the point being made so really why care?
From reading all of that I don't see how saying "should of" or "your going to have to do something" (both of which are common, and personally I find infuriating) is anything to do with dyslexia, it's either laziness or poor education.
You should care less about such a trivial issue, like literally, as you know what they mean. Just as you know what that means despite it hurting your sensibilities to the point you questioning others intellect.
You do realise language usages chances and we dont all talk like Chaucer or Shakespeare wrote
Most people I've spent time with using English as their second language have asked me to correct their English wherever possible so that they can learn.
Correcting someone who asks for help and wishes to improve their language skills is fine and a good thing to do. However grammar is rarely corrected, on the internet, to be helpful .It' s done for the poster to appear more knowledgeable/smarter/brighter than the person they correct - its like a middle class way of going Hey thicko shut it whist pretending they are "helping". They are almost always not trying to help and really who GAS if you know what they meant why are you "correcting"?
She gets more than a little angered when people trot out dyslexia as some sort of excuse for not being able to use language properly
Good news STW says its ok to call them thick
Agreed in full. Mrs CFH is very dyslexic, if there can be such a thing. When stressed, she could spell "cat" as "pxxlhyyupnnsayyflxxssqq" and it would make perfect sense to her. She knows the difference between "should have" and "should of", however, as being dyslexic doesn't mean your thick, doesn't mean you don't understand grammar, etc. She gets more than a little angered when people trot out dyslexia as some sort of excuse for not being able to use language properly.
Ditto, both on the very dyslexic wife, and the sentiment.
Mine tried to set fire to all her books when she was 14 as she was fed up of the words moving around 😯
It is more than just spelling though, the whole ability to process information, especially when stressed, is a lot more tricky.
Doesn't stop her boiling my blood when she uses grocers' apostrophe's though....
Is there ? Do we all have to be like you?Reading this I was , like, so livid, literally
You know what this means so really why GAS?
That's conversational, that's not what we're talking about. The statement was that conversational is ok, but was being used to talk about incorrect grammar/spelling.
"Is their? Do wee awl have two bee like ewe?" is wrong, totally different.
I think there may well be people who blame dyslexia for being bad spellers, same as there are people who say they have a migrane when they have a headache, or blame their hormones for being overweight.
That's a reflection on them though not the conditions they don't have.
As for minor grammatical points then yes - some are not helpful. Like dangling prepositions; I was reading the other day that these rules aren't rules at all, they just stem from someone's style guide published 300 years ago.
However saying 'should of' instead of 'should have' is really messing up the structure of the language. 'Should have' is a specific grammatical form, a modal verb, and has a meaning; 'Should of' is nonsense that happens to sound similar.
[i]grocers' apostrophe's[/i]
See, if I typed that I spend the next 10 minutes worrying I'd got one if not both of them in the wrong place.
See, if I typed that I spend the next 10 minutes worrying I'd got one if not both of them in the wrong place.
One is correct, one is tongue in cheek 😉
EDIT: For Njee
I understood your post - you knew i would when you wrote it so its somewhat weakens any point you wish to make about it being wrong.
You communicated your ideas to me and that is the primary goal with communication
Zokes 😉 given the thread's subject that was another corker.
JY, it's a bit of a stretch to say that STW says its ok to call people thick. Can't see much evidence of that.
The death of adverbs and their replacement with adjectives (especially in sporting commentary, punditry, etc) and "Me and John...." grate with me at the moment.
Plus iPad's auto spell function!
I understood your post - you knew i would when you wrote it so its somewhat weakens any point you wish to make about it being wrong.
You communicated your ideas to me and that is the primary goal with communication
If that's aimed at me, then you're barking up the wrong tree. I was concurring with Flashy - I hadn't even seen your post when I wrote mine.
Read it again and you might see it as intended, i.e. humour.
Or, you could just get worked up - whatever work's for you 😉
Plus iPad's auto spell function!
😆
Read it again and you might see it as intended, i.e. humour.Or, you could just get worked up - whatever work's for you
Kinda (sorry) sums the whole thread up really, especially when you go back to the original alleged offence!
Work's 😀 😀
Zokes I edited it to make it clear that I replied to njee [then they to me then me to them]
Lack of comprehension grates more than lack of grammar as that does show stupidity 😉
I understood your post - you knew i would when you wrote it so its somewhat weakens any point you wish to make about it being wrong.
You communicated your ideas to me and that is the primary goal with communication
Where does that end though? Again, my specific example was incorrect forms, such as "should of". People can use the defense that it's fine to use 'conversational' language here, but my entire point (which you've rather missed) is that that isn't conversational, it's wrong. Whilst I agree it doesn't need to be absolutely perfect written form here, if people are writing things like "should of" they're probably doing it in other places where it perhaps does matter, job applications for example.
Whilst I agree it doesn't need to be absolutely perfect written form here, if people are writing things like "should of" they're probably doing it in other places where it perhaps does matter, job applications for example.
Agreed. As others have alluded to, it's an educational experience to be picked-up on your grammatical errors.
incorrect forms, such as "should of"
its not really incorrect as you know what it means
May i , Can i, Pass the die or dice. You know what is meant so why get so upset. language usages changes I suggest you start to deal with it as you wont stop it.
If i say someone is gay you dont think they are happy but you would have 50 years ago.
but my entire point (which you've rather missed) is that that isn't conversational, it's wrong
I repeat my point about you working on your comprehension
I have addressed this as I have done so again this time.
Agreed. As others have alluded to, it's an educational experience to be picked-up on your grammatical errors.
This is OK, but I think you could do with a "for" between "on" and "your". Also not really sure that "picked-up" is the best way or wording it (and certainly not hyphenated). Perhaps "to have your grammatical errors pointed out" would work better?
Perhaps "to have your grammatical errors pointed out" would work better?
Is that a statement or a question?
😉
its not really incorrect as you know what it means
So the written word is correct as long as you can understand what it means?
Is that a statement or a question?
Both!
molgrips - Member
Only read three pages of this but can someone PLEASE give [s]Junkyard[/s] molgrips a capital [s]L[/s] M for [s]his Lazarus tag[/s] molgrips, it's doing my nut.
[img] 
[/img]
This is OK, but I think you could do with a "for" between "on" and "your". Also not really sure that "picked-up" is the best way or wording it (and certainly not hyphenated). Perhaps "to have your grammatical errors pointed out" would work better?
My point exactly.
And thanks BTW...
🙂
JY - the "does it matter if you understand me" argument is interesting as this is what seems to have been taken increasingly as the rule in education for several decades. In some cases, especially the mejia, it clearly doesn't matter indeed in the case of sports commentary it is a prerequisite for success. But in others, it does matter. In the early stages of my previous career, I was almost fired for having three typos in a (hundred) page report. Plus making an error on a CV or application form was a killer from the start. From an educational perspective, I think we do students a disservice if we ignore grammar and spelling. At the very least, it cuts off opportunities.
It is almost always possible to understand what folk mean even when they use poor grammar.
Whether it is correct, in the sense I think you mean, is often irrelevant. the real issue is can I/you /we understand what they mean to convey.
When someone says to me can I have a biscuit - i dont give them a lecture on how can explains ability and may asks for permission i just answer the question
When someone says to me can I have a biscuit - i dont give them a lecture on how can explains ability and may asks for permission i just answer the question
But even you'd spit fire if they said [i]Can I get a biscuit[/i]
Right ?
Plus making an error on a CV or application form was a killer from the start. From an educational perspective, I think we do students a disservice if we ignore grammar and spelling.
As someone who's just gone through 39 CVs from applicants for a position requiring a PhD, and preferably a couple of years postdoctoral experience, I'm frankly appalled at some of their language skills.
I'm also tempted to write on the manuscript that I'm currently reviewing for the second time that the Germans who wrote it clearly need to find a better proof reader. (They claimed it had been thoroughly checked by one when their errors were highlighted in the last iteration).
Right ?
no As i know what they mean even though I could explain why they have expressed it poorly
Language is about communicating and it evolves, changes, develops.
Some times it is important, CV's, job applications etc but in general just chillax [ I ****ing hate that word but i know what it means] dudes.
Junkyard - lazarus
It is almost always possible to understand what folk mean even when they use poor grammar.
True, but you do make it hard at times, JY!?!? 😉
Just read a govenment report this morning with get in the first line!!! My old English teacher would be tearing his hair out!!! Two words you should never use - nice (there is always a better alternative) and get/got - was one of his mantras What is the world coming to?!?!
I could explain why they have expressed it poorly
You could... 😉
I may , can i 😉
[img] 
[/img]
They're not biscuits, they're cakes.
Can I get one...?
Can I get one...?
Dunno, can you?
See, it gets weird, doesn't it.
Where's Emsz when you need an explanation of such things...
Again, my specific example was incorrect forms, such as "should of". People can use the defense that it's fine to use 'conversational' language
Funny thing is, people are actually saying 'should've', they just don't know how to write it down.
[i]Where's Emsz when you need an explanation of such things...[/i]
Ta da... What things? Well, when a girl and a boy love each other very much....
[i]defense[/i]
American English spell checker?
