GrammarBlog

img src="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/z_images/banners/v2launch.gif" border="0" title="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" alt="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" />

Passive Aggressive Notes is one of my favourite blogs. A major reason for this is the frequent mangling of the English language by disgruntled passive-aggressors. Below is one of my favourite entries from October of last year.

Isn't that marvellous? The txt speak, the sentence formation, the vulgarity, the threat (and ass kicking will surely follow) and the remarkable sign-off all add up to comedy gold. I was most confused by the use of the word trifling. In the context of such extreme vehemence, trifling – defined by those Oxford blokes as "unimportant or trivial" – seemed misplaced. In fact, I spent a good couple of minutes trying to identify a possible malapropism, to no avail.

"But why bring this up now?" I hear you ask, "this post is the best part of a year old!".

I shall tell you for why. At the end of last month I twittered (yes, that's a verb now) a message asking other twitterers what they thought of a piece from guardian.co.uk on language evolution. The author, Paul MacInnes was lamenting what he views as the introduction of unnecessary words into the formal lexicon.

It appears that GrammarBlog twitter friend eris_chaos agrees with MacInnes, responding thusly.

I find that irritating. We are THAT much closer to trifling meaning "nasty" in the dictionary instead of "trivial".

And the penny drops. It's not a malapropism, it's a colloquialism. That's an altogether different kind of ism. Indeed the urban dictionary (shudder) carries the following definition.

When a hippo takes a big dump in front of a group of 1st graders and then eats it.
That's triflin'.

In response to the hungry hippo's action, Oh no, that's triflin'!

You learn something new everyday every day.

Rather than launch into indignant polemic, I thought I'd canvass opinion on this matter. So what do you lot reckon?

Labels: language, passive-aggressive notes, trifling, vocabulary

img src="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/z_images/banners/v2launch.gif" border="0" title="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" alt="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" />

As a science graduate I'm not a big fan of creationism. I have nothing against religion but I object to creationism being taught as a scientific theory in schools. This is much more of an issue in the US; especially in the mid-west and southern states where, it would appear, nearly everyone is a raving lunatic.

I've been following the story of Chris Comer, who was fired as Director of Science Curriculum for the Texas Education Agency. She forwarded an email to a group of friends and colleagues about a lecture by a leading critic of Intelligent Design. This was seen an endorsement of evolution and she was fired. That's like being fired for endorsing gravity.

An appeal is in progress that is focused on the skewed logic of this sacking. The main objection seems to be that it is wrong to interpret the forwarding of an email as an endorsement of the content. Language log commented in favour of Comer in a post. I would argue that it's wrong to fire a science teacher for condoning the teaching of science but apparently this argument doesn't hold water in Texas.

Anyway, disregarding the politics for a moment, Mr. Verb found issue with a quote from Ms. Comer reported here by the NYT:

I don’t see how I took a position by F.Y.I.-ing on a lecture like I F.Y.I. on global warming or stem-cell research,” Ms. Comer said.

Sorry, did she just verb FYI? Mr. Verb had this to say:

To fyi, or to F.Y.I. as the Times copy editors prefer, just had to be out there … it sounds like perfect bureaucratic talk ... but I don't think I'd ever heard it and I'm pretty sure I'd never seen it in print.

I'm with Mr. Verb (apart from his misuse of ellipses). What the hell is she talking about? Bureaucratic verbing: that's an offence for which she should be fired.

Labels: grammar, justice, language, rants, verbing, wrong word

img src="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/z_images/banners/v2launch.gif" border="0" title="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" alt="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" /> Steven Pinker has given a great interview to Guardian Unlimited in which he talks about, among other things, language as a measure of human development and swearing syntaxes (again).

As interesting as the interview is, whenever I hear intellectual discussion about language I can't help but think of that old Fry and Laurie sketch. To listen to the whole interview click here (or download the target file and listen to it later).

Labels: guardian, language, profanity, Stephen Fry, Steven Pinker

img src="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/z_images/banners/v2launch.gif" border="0" title="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" alt="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" /> This brilliantly abstruse extract from Bizarre Notes and Queries was written in August 1890 to show "that it would be possible to write a technically grammatical sentence, which would be almost unintelligible." I found this via a blog called Grow a Brain.

Sir:— You have behaved like an impetiginous-Croyle! like those inquinate, Crass-sciolists who envious of my moral celsitude, carry their nugacity to the height of creating symposically the facund words which my polymathic genius uses with uberty to abligate the tongues of the weetless! Sir—you have crassly parodied my own pet words, as though they were tangrams. I will not coacervate reproaches—I would abduce a veil over the atramental ingratitude which has chamferred even my undicerptible heart. I am silent on the foscillation, which my coadjivancy must have given you when I offered to become your fautor and admincle. I will not speak of the lippitude, the ablepsy, you have shown in exacerbating me—one whose genius you should have approached with mental discalceation. So I tell you sir syncophically, and without supervaceneous words, nothing will render ignoscible your conduct to me. I warn you that I would vellicate your nose, if I thought that any moral diathrosis could be thereby performed—if I thought that I should not impignorate my reputation by such a digtadiation.

With a bit of care and dedication, the English language can become a very effective barrier to understanding.

GrammarBlog points will be awarded to readers who can successfully interpret some or all of this passage. Good luck.

Labels: language, vocabulary

img src="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/z_images/banners/v2launch.gif" border="0" title="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" alt="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" /> While perusing SPOGG I found a very interesting post discussing whether or not received pronunciation and standardised grammar are racist.

Apparently "Ebonics", and the more PC term, "African American Vernacular English" (AAVE) are terms to describe the way some groups of black Americans speak the English language. It appears that the Oakland school board, in a desperate attempt to prove how right-on they are, drew up a resolution to officially recognize it as a language in December of 1996. This idea was quite rightly kiboshed by the powers that be.

Now it appears Ebonics (that term really grates with me, I'll use AAVE from here on in) is back on the agenda. Faye Gage, director of the Connecticut Writing Project, addressed the issue at a recent convention. Here she gives an example of AAVE and why she thinks we need to formally recognise it:

When students use non-standard subject-verb formations - "The books be on the table," for instance - they're not speaking bad or corrupted English. They're correctly applying the rules of grammar they've learned at home.

My initial thoughts on this were as follows - Balderdash, tish and indeed, fipsy.

I mean come on, what would happen if that warped logic was applied to other aspects of life? E.G. juvenile court.

I do apologise for the confusion, your honor, when little Trevor TWOCked that car, he wasn't actually breaking the law. No no, you see he's applying the law as he learnt it at home. His father is professional car thief, you see, so there really is no problem. We'll just be on our way.

Now, before everyone gets all in a tangle about race, I will state this: this argument should have nothing to do with race. In addition I am not opposed to spoken vernacular or dialects that don't conform to standard English. On the contrary I love them. Here in the UK we're spoilt for choice; Geordie, Cockney, Brummie, Scouse (actually I am against Scousers) Weedgie, Cornish, Manc and more- all with their own vocabulary, their own peculiar ways of forming sentences but all speaking English. That's the point really isn't it? AAVE isn't a language, it's a new dialect (new compared to say, Geordie, which exists because of the Vikings).

As soon as we fail to correct colloquialisms in written English and formal speech we can kiss goodbye to our language. We're also not doing the kids favours by failing to correct them, they need to know how to form decent prose, they need to know what's expected of them in the real world. None of this is new of course, the stuffy US establishment that Gage is attempting to reform probably spent their teen years saying "far out" and "groovy, man - don't be a square" and other such perversions of our sacred tongue.

The full article draws similar conclusions (I think).

If any of you are wondering why I embrace dialects, take a look at the below video of John Smeaton. If you understand more than 50% I'll be impressed, unless you're a Weedgie yersel ken?

Labels: AAVE, dialect, ebonics, language, smeaton, video

img src="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/z_images/banners/v2launch.gif" border="0" title="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" alt="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" /> Recently spotted in my MD's artwork presentation to a potential client:

Single Breasted Womens Jackets

Admittedly, fashion marketing isn't my area of expertise but I wouldn't have thought there are enough single breasted women to create the demand for such an item. In addition there is a possessive apostrophe missing (grrrr).

Note: The plural of woman is "women". There is no plural of women so "womens" is never a word.

Technically, the header should have read:

Single-breasted, Women's Jackets

I resisted the urge to suggest that it should be changed, partly because I don't want to appear anal and smug (unlike certain other GrammarBloggers) and partly because I suspected I would be overruled in the name of style.

The layout for this presentation was clean and uncluttered and the header would have admittedly lost some of its stylistic value if it had been interrupted with all that pesky punctuation.

So does that mean the laws of punctuation can be ignored in this case? Not under my hard-line dictatorship, that's for damn sure! Any arty types dropping apostrophes willy-nilly had better be prepared for the thumbscrews.

Leniency will be shown with regards to hyphens, they can be optional.

Labels: language, marketing copy, punctuation, Typography

img src="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/z_images/banners/v2launch.gif" border="0" title="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" alt="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" /> I'll be using this blog in a slightly different way. I'll be attempting to cut through common linguistic myths and looking at some of the nuances of English (with particular focus on modern-day usage). I'll also be regularly discussing typography and its fundamental importance as language's visual medium.

Expect plenty of bilious posts, with lots of examples of Comic Sans and Bank Gothic abuse.

Labels: grammar, language, Typography

img src="http://www.grammarblog.co.uk/z_images/banners/v2launch.gif" border="0" title="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" alt="We've moved to www.grammarblog.co.uk" />

Although I am well aware that the first post of any blog rarely gets read I thought I'd use the opportunity to tell you what GrammarBlog is all about and my reasons for starting it up.

I think I'm fairly normal kind of bloke, I'm not particularly anal or fussy and I'm certainly not a neat freak, but every time I see a misplaced apostrophe or get a text from someone calling me a "m8" I get annoyed, really annoyed.

You see grammar is important. The English language, due to the nature of its multiple origins, is brilliantly diverse and flexible. A well written piece of prose can convey so many levels of meaning but this meaning can be lost if the grammar is neglected. And yet is it being neglected all the time. I see examples everyday: on signs; on the internet; in speech and even in newspapers.

What isn't being neglected is being actively destroyed. In the last ten years the instant communication of email and text messages has meant that people value speed of response above all else. This led to smileys.

Well no more. Not in my name!

It's time for me and my fellow bloggers to fight back. GrammarBlog will be used to demonstrate examples of English that just makes us want to pull our hair out and hopefully we'll stop being annoyed long enough to find some of it funny.

Labels: fun, grammar, language, vitriol