Conference 7.286::digital

>	... (I dont read that one).
                 /
need an apostrophe here

    IMO, I don't think *any* of these spelling/grammer/usage notes should
    be in this file. If you, as a reader, feel a correction is required, a
    mail message to the author will serve the purpose, without the public
    ridicule or increase of noise level in this conference.
    
    SEND/AUTH isn't that much harder to type than REPLY.
    
    Dave

    Cheers for Dave.
    
    If spelling nitters are not grandstanders, then they will follow Dave's
    advice.  If they are, then we all see them exposed.
    
    Dick

    
    I don't think that occasional lapses are the issue. 
    
    I do believe that posting a note which is full of misspellings and
    grammatical errors is disrespectful of the readers, especially given
    that we have tools such as spelling checkers.
    
    Poor writing obscures the ideas which are being communicated.
    Understanding is difficult enough to achieve without the additional
    burden of having to decipher what was written.
    
    

	While I agree with .5 (if you take the time to write a note,
	you should take the time to make it readable), .3 is on the
	mark - the way to deal with such people is through mail. I
	usually notice the misspellings/grammatical errors myself, I
	don't need to see someone proudly proclaiming to the entire
	network that they saw them too.

	Mike

    
    Are we really this bored?

    While on this "world peace and brotherhood" mega-issue, just note,
    Noters, that VMS SPELL allows you to create your own vocabulary just by 
    "entering newly-formed connective alphanumeric packets" (the "valuing
    differences" term for bad spelling; I'd say misspell but I always
    mispell misspell)
    
    Lighten up, dudes!!!
    

    
    	Hey all you word manglers - take heart!  Most math majors I
    have dealt with in this company cannot spell anything larger than
    a single letter variable with any reliability. This includes their
    names, addresses and what not.  They dutifully program in "C" or Algol, 
    and are the largest users of spell checkers in existance.  They are
    generally not viewed as stupid, although rudeness via preoccupation
    or terminal geekness can be expected.   I'd say they are about even
    in personal respect with anal retentive human spell checkers.
    
    	bob (math idiot AND poor speller)
    

    .9:
    
    'They dutifully program in "C" or Algol. ...'
    
    How many LCG machines are currently in use internally?
    
    Dick

    
    re: .10 - ok, so they do it in their minds (where they keep the extra
    4 bits).  Today they are architects who use modula-1 - no useable
    output guarrenteed!

    No doubt about it, we should all try to spell correctly.
    
    When a person tries to reply to a note, worries about content, has
    real work to do, and is limited by a SLOW network link, I don't worry
    about tabbing up to correct a work unless the mispelling changes the
    context of the content.  Most times it does not.
    
    So I leave it as is.
    
    Also, I have a slight dyslexia.  I am working to improve it, but
    sometimes don't.  The anal retentives that cry spelling foul should
    realize that there are alot of us out here and keep their idiocy to
    a minimum.  Note that this is not an excuse, but I'd rather spend
    the time to ensure my *REAL WORK* is not influenced by my problem
    as opposed to this (notes) distraction.
    
    Again, AT's focus on CONTENT and check your arrogance at the door.
    
    Geez, what a company!
    
    Chip_GSH_Bach

I am usually bothered by the use of incorrect words. For example, in the note
that started this track about spelling errors, the author consistently used
'there' instead of 'their'. Each time, I had to stop and re-read the sentence
to make sense of it. This is far more annoying than most typos, and worse than
the error originally mentioned (principle v.s. principal).

There are some notes that I was unable to read because the grammatical
structure was so bad that I could not make sense of what the author was saying.
There are others which are understandable, when I take the time to stop and
correct the grammar in my mind. Simple spelling errors are the least trouble,
when the word is at all recognizable.

It might be worth the time to write replies for the worst cases; but it is a
waste of storage to pick nits when the idea is expressed adequately.

Those who understand the difference between the words 'their' and 'there' can go
to the next reply now. A short lesson follows for the others.

'Their' is the posessive form of 'they'. 'There' indicates location. For
example, "Their dictionaries are on the table over there."

    English is a livng language - it is not dead; it changes.
    I have been corrected all my life and I tend to correct when
    something pains my ear.
    
    Say thanks and listen and learn. We're constantly showing one another
    how to communicate. This is not only healthy, it's fun.
    
    So, lighten up. No need to get defensive when you're not being attacked.
    Also, no need to show off by throwing spotlights on nits that are
    easy to overlook. 
    
    Be nice to see some common sense balance.
    
    Janet

I try to be understanding and accomodating when reading notes even though
I find a lot of the errors aggravating and painful.  I feel that in this 
arena the substance is more important than the form and would rather someone 
who is too busy to correct errors or may simply not know any better put in 
their thoughts anyway rather than to withhold them due to worries that they 
might not be accepted in the spirit in which they are presented.  However, I 
am *horrified* at the thought that things which contain glaring errors are 
going out to our customers, especially at a time when we are trying to 
convince the world that we are the "best".

L.

    Keep in mind also that many noters are non-US employees, for which
    English is not their main language.  They do their best to communicate
    ideas, ask for help, etc., to benefit from NOTES technology as much as
    we in the US or UK.

    i alsso in most agreemant with the idias that corrict spilling is 
    verry imporrtannt to good commuonications skells.
    thes is very importent topic, indded.

    Could someone move this topic to the MOANS conference?
    
    I don't think this is a Digital-specific problem.
    

    When I type something in a notesfile, I do not spell check it because
    it is an informal medium and the misspelling could be caused by several
    things including the fact that my thoughts are going fast than my
    fingers.  All formal internal and external memos get reviewed.  I think
    to nit on any of this stuff (grammar and spelling) in notesfiles is
    basically a big waste of time.
    
    Mike

    According to folklore -
    
    The story goes that the common term "O.K." that many people use (both
    spoken and written comments) has "roots" dating back to Andrew Jackson.
    
    Jackson reportedly would sign the tops of papers/documents with a large
    O.K. - indicating he had read and approved.
    
    When questioned what O.K. meant, he responded "Oll Korrect".  When the
    spelling "issue" was pointed out to him,  Andy responded that
     "if a man can only spell a word one way he's a damn fool!"
    
    Believe it or Not! 

>                     <<< Note 1591.16 by CLOVAX::BARNETT >>>
>                      -< We are an international company >-

 >   Keep in mind also that many noters are non-US employees, for which
 >   English is not their main language.  They do their best to communicate
 >   ideas, ask for help, etc., to benefit from NOTES technology as much as
 >   we in the US or UK.

 Hear hear, we should be tolerant of others who are trying to learn one
 of the world's most inconsistently spelt languages.

 Also bear in mind that British English is more widely spoken 
 internationally than American English. One person's spelling
 mistake or grammatical error might be perfectly OK in the writer's
 variety of English.

 Craig

    
    Intersting that correcting other erros of composition (e.g., typing
    in all caps) is accepted behavior.
    	

    
    >       It was a long time ago when that that was was. And so it came to
    >       be that that that was was no longer that that was. And when the
    >       people realised that that was was no longer that that was; they
    >       asked;
    >
    >       What was that?
                                                                          

Re .10:

>I've never seen Algol for VMS -- do you have a source??

Well, I translated my class-project Algol-60 parser from Bliss-10 to C++.  The
source it accepts is somewhere between pure Algol-60 and Algol-10/20.  It's on
LABREA""::"/usr/users/amartin/algol/".  That's an Ultrix machine, but since
I [re]wrote it in C++, of course it should run on VMS as well.

I haven't really touched it since late June, since I got DEC C++ to compile it,
and it promptly segfaulted during execution.  (Cfront 1.2 and g++ process it
just fine).

When I eventually finish rebeating it so that it's OO, I'll consider adding
later passes.
				/AHM

    THis discussion was triggered, I believe, by something I said. It was
    in reference to someone describing themselves as a PRINCIPLE as opposed
    to a PRINCIPAL engineer. If a person can even spell their own job title
    then we are in a sorry state. 
    
    q
    

    >>  If a person can even spell their own job title
    >>  then we are in a sorry state.
    
    I would guess that you really meant CAN'T instead of CAN.
    
    Isn't it fun being able to be able to waste time on such picayunish
    details.  ;^)
    
    tgc

    The way I see it, if a company can have people with job titles like
    Solutions Architect than it may very well have one or more Principle
    Engineers hanging around (if you can architect a solution, I don't see
    why you can't engineer a principle).
    
    -dave ;^)

    I agree that we all should be responsible for clearly
    communicating our ideas both orally, electronically,
    etc.

    I have a hard time, however, with people who have nothing
    better to do than pick apart other people's "donts". PLEASE...

    HELP THE COMPANY'S FUTURE AND DO SOME REAL WORK!!!

Regarding people who can't spell their own job titles:

	Yesterday, I couldn't even spell injineer. Today I are one.

	:-)   :-)     :-)

    I view Notes entries as the on-line equivalent of causal, informal 
    speech.  In turn, I believe that the standards we
    apply to our everyday conversations, should apply in Notes.
    
    In our everyday conversations, infinitives are often split, 
    pronouns don't agree with their referents, some sentences are left 
    unfinished, others ramble on forever.  Nonetheless, we still effectively 
    communicate with each other.  In fact, too much attention to grammar 
    rules can make an informal conversation seem unnaturally stilted.
    
    In our conversations, grammatical standards and conventions can not be 
    totally or even generally abandoned, but there is a lot of flexibility
    that can be tolerated.  I think we should approach Notes with the same
    mindset.  As long as someones content can be easily understod, then
    there grammer and spelling shouldn't be an issue that deserves comment.
                           
    Gene

    
    One should look at this note positively, what is wrong in pointing out
    spelling errors and/or poor grammar? I, for one, welcome any corrections
    because the end result is that my writing skills improve. One has to
    remember that what you write is usually the first contact people have
    with you, and I am sure, you would like that contact to be positive.
    I have numerously and with embarassement seen presentations in academia
    and industry from digital employees riddled with spelling errors, that
    is simply not acceptable. I make spelling errors, and sometimes my 
    writing style is not necessarily elegant, but I make sure that no
    blaring errors are in the text before shipping.  
    
    RE: -1. please see .13 regarding the word "there".
    
    The learning process is infinite, I would be bored stiff otherwise!
    
    fd. " Who never spoke nor knew a word of english till 21 of age, and
          I am far from retirement" 

    re. all
    
    
     Do people correct you when you are speaking? Do you studder? Perhaps
    make a pause when you are thinking of something else to add in
    mid-sentence. An occasional, "AHHH", "UHMM", you know.
    
     I'll bet you don't get corrected. Yet electronically it is acceptable?
    
    Think about it.
    Mike Z.

        Re: .19

>    When I type something in a notesfile, I do not spell check it because
>    it is an informal medium and the misspelling could be caused by several
>    things including the fact that my thoughts are going fast than my
>    fingers.  All formal internal and external memos get reviewed.  I think
>    to nit on any of this stuff (grammar and spelling) in notesfiles is
>    basically a big waste of time.

        I don't think that spell checking notes is a waste of time.  In
        fact, I consider not spell checking notes to be a waste of time. 

        For most notes conferences each note gets read more times than
        it is written.  For active conferences, each note gets read
        thousands of times.  Notes that contain spelling or grammar
        errors, or even fuzzy thinking, will, on average, take more time
        to read than well-thought-out notes with correct spellings and
        precise grammar.  If a spelling error causes 10% of thousands of
        people to spend an extra 5 seconds puzzling out the meaning of
        a note, the wasted time can build up fast.

        As has been pointed out, the differences between the English
        used on the right side of the pond and the American used on the
        left side make it impossible to always write something that
        everyone can understand, but the utility of notes conferences
        for everyone goes up as people take the effort to improve the
        quality of their notes.

        The notes I write aren't perfect, but I did spell check and
        review this note before I placed it in the conference.

        					B.J.

    wooden it bee niece to sea a program like spell
    that was able to make the corrections quickly
    and automatic-ly so wen eye send a massage thats
    spelt wrong it gets fixed
    
    buzz

    re: last several...

    Like I said in .3, I don't think the issue is whether or not correct
    spelling and grammar are 'goodness', or even if it's goodness/badness
    to correct others, but whether such corrections should be posted as
    replies to topics of discussion in this conference. Even if it's
    considered bad etiquette to post poorly spelled/constructed notes, 
    it detracts even further from a topic of discussion to go down a
    spelling and grammar rathole so frequently. If you feel you must
    correct someone, please use MAIL and not NOTES to do so.
    
    Dave

    As for spell checking words, good for you. 
    
    I just wonder, however, if someone may not feel you are being lax
    for not running a grammar checker over your prognostications as well?
    While we are at it, I am sure that someone could start to apply formal
    logic to your arguments as well. Great, and then a panel could sort
    through the worth of your arguments to rate them on a scale so only the
    best ten go in. We could go on like this for weeks, and it might only
    be a submission to Soapbox.
    
    There are a great many people who are afraid to contribute to
    notesfiles, who just read rather than write, who may have something to 
    contribute to the quality of the argument but who would like their
    ideas discussed, not the level of mastery of the language. The same
    people who lack principle when attacking Principals, who probably made
    a couple of mistakes while learning the languages but now laud their
    mastery over others do me no favours by trumpeting so here because they
    stifle the potential contribution of others. 
    Mail the "offender" off-line, that proves you want to help them improve, 
    not build your own sense of self-worth at the expense of others by
    berating them. We have enough swelled egos in this industry.
    Free and open debate, without a lot of needless rules, may be one of the 
    things that will get the Corporation back on the rails. Let all
    contribute.
    
    
    

    One of the criteria of level 1 managers and above is that they do not
    use or write words that contain more than "2" syllables. Orange Book
    chapter-7, MBC Candidates procedeurs and policy....

	Personally, it gives me a certain amount of pain to read
	mis-spelled and/or otherwise obscure prose. To some extent
	this reflects the amount of time and effort I spent between
	the ages of 6 and 10 trying to get 10/10 in spelling tests,
	and a somewhat childish resentment that other people should
	"get away" with mistakes that would have got me big black marks
	and heavy criticism even as a child.

	However, there is a more serious and justifiable reason for
	correcting spelling. Most of us, at some time or another, will
	write something that will be read by customers or other "external"
	people whom we wish to impress. All the efforts we put into trying
	to position Digital as a major player, one of the top computer
	companies, etc., are negated by a single crass spelling mistake
	in a brochure, a handbook, a letter, or even an informal note
	or electronic mail message. Some customers may not mind, but
	most will - even those who are not irreproachable themselves.

	Imagine a written communication from IBM having a spelling error
	or other solecism. I can't remember having seen a single one, and
	I have been reading IBM material with interest for 20 years.

	Btw, British English versus American English is a different issue.
	Being a British subject married to an American, with two transatlantic
	daughters, I am fully aware of the differences in spelling, usage,
	and style. Also the standard jokes. Once again, these differences
	can be turned to advantage, or neglected to our disadvantage.
	But text written in correct British or American English in a
	consistent manner will not create the impression of carelessness
	and/or ignorance that inconsistent and inccorrect spelling does.
	At worst, it will generate some annoyance at what may look like
	cultural insensitivity.

	I think the bottom line is that the excellent spelling checkers
	which Digital supplies for EVE, Notes, DECwrite, etc., can handle
	either British or American English... and those who need them
	ought to consider using them. It only takes a few minutes to
	learn.

	The reason for correcting spelling mistakes in Notes, then, is to
	let the writer know that they have made a mistake, in order that
	they don't repeat it in an external communication. I agree that
	Mail is a more sensitive way of doing this. But the merit of this
	topic is that many people who make the same mistake may see it
	corrected, and thereby learn the correct form.

	/Tom

	re .37:

>    One of the criteria of level 1 managers and above is that they do not
>    use or write words that contain more than "2" syllables. Orange Book
>    chapter-7, MBC Candidates procedeurs and policy....

	That *is* a joke, isn't it? From personal experience, I have
	some nagging doubts...

	/Tom

    RE: I kind of hate to do this, but inccorrect is spelled incorrect.
    
    The reason I brought this up (I hate to nit on spelling, because
    EVERYONE is prone to error as we are all human.  Whereas it is apparent
    that yours was a typographical error, calling a misspelled word to
    someones attention does (IMO) in fact detract to the subject at hand. 
    I have seen many people who were not educated beyond the 6th & 8th
    grades (due to circumstances beyond their control), thus having a
    vocabulary which corresponding with their education, who have made and
    continue to make contributions in amny areas which far exceed
    contributions of their "educated" counterparts.  To stifle some of
    their contributions, in my opinion, would be very unjust and deprive
    a lot of people of some very valuable information.
    
    Mike

    RE: -1. My thoughts exactly! There are NO excuses for NOT checking your 
            spelling.

    
    
    Mr Djennas,
    
    May I point out that I will give you a reason rather than an excuse, for
    the term excuse implies I have some obligation to you which I have
    failed to deliver. Show me the contract which states I owe you
    anything.
    
    When it is 12 midnight and I have been here since 7am and I am
    writing a note in between compiles and tracking down a bug which
    has eluded moi for days, I am not going to give two hoots if the
    word pompous has two "p"s or one. However, if the spelling mistake
    is in something I am producing for someone else, I will care an awful
    lot, and will make sure it is done properly. I would much rather that
    my code is clean, well-structured and communicates accurately. I also
    try to assure the same for documents and VAXnotes when the possibility
    of being misconstrued in business could occur. 
    
    If I have made a mistake, great, have the professional courtesy to 
    tell me privately so I can take the action to correct the mistake
    myself. I'll learn much more quickly and be more amenable to
    contributing again than if some notes loudmouth derides the worth of my
    contribution. It is a bit like using a loudhailer to draw attention to
    the fact someone forgot to do their shoelaces up.
    
    This might seem like harping, but part of the problems the computer
    industry has is an intolerance or misunderstanding of the differing
    standards of education and experience of the people we deal with day to
    day. This reflects in intolerance, cries of RTFM, and the end result is
    products that no one can use or people who walk away feeling belittled
    because some computer nerd on the other end of the line or a keyboard
    has made them feel insecure in front of their peers. We all have
    foibles, for some it is spelling, for others it is time management,
    and others still verbal presentation. If someone feels they have a good
    idea lets evaluate the idea, they have taken the time to think about
    it, let us give it the consideration it deserves.
    
    
    regards,
    John
    
    

The problem is that NOTES will not correct spelling mistakes automatically
and check your grammer!

;-)
Tim

    Common spelling errors that irritate me..
    
    loose 		for lose
    definately		for definitely
    irregardless	for regardless
    ...
    
    karl

    The "loose" for "lose" phenomenon drives me crazy -- even more than
    the misuse of "there, they're, and their."  I see it in many
    notesfiles, and recently saw it on a printed bumper sticker.  It
    said, "Loose weight -- join mumbleclub".  I'm not so sure this is
    a spelling error issue as much as a lack of recognition that there
    are actually two words -- loose, lose -- which have different meanings.
    
    I read in the Globe the other day that one out of four years in
    an American college or university is spent doing remedial work in
    grammar, math, etc.
    
    I do agree, however, that unless noters agree that spelling and
    grammatical errors will be "picked up" by other noters and publicized,
    corrections should be made via E-mail.
    

Re:                 <<< Note 1591.41 by XCUSME::MACINTYRE >>>

>    Spell checkers are not totally effective....
    
Ever tried using VAX DECspell on text including the word "microcode"?  It 
doesn't recognize it and brings up the alternative "muckraked"...  :-)

-  David

    My biggest complaints are twofold:  Spelling (improper usage of their,
    there and they're; spelling paid as payed and other offenses of that
    nature) and the improper use of apostrophes to form plurals.  This
    includes understanding the difference between its and it's, pluralizing
    words that end in y with "y's" instead of "ies" and just in general using
    an apostrophe where none is called for.  This includes spelling a
    person whose last name ends in s, such as Wade Boggs, as Wade Bogg's
    (sic).  I tend to get less upset about grammar because proper grammar
    can be hard to figure out, but proper spelling isn't.  That's what
    dictionaries (not dictionary's (sic)) are for.
        
    I disagree about minimizing the importance of spelling even in an
    informal forum such as this.  It reflects badly on the writer's level
    of literacy and for me, makes me think that the writer has nothing
    useful to say if s/he can't spell it right.  I am shocked at the level
    of writing I see in memos from high-level managers and it makes me
    wonder just how in the world they ever got that far.  
    
    John

>       <<< Note 1591.48 by FSDEV::JHENDRY "John Hendry, DTN 297-2623" >>>

>    useful to say if s/he can't spell it right.  I am shocked at the level

As spelling and grammar seem to be important to you, I'm surprised to
see you using the construction "s/he". I don't believe there is such a
word in the English language. In any case, a "/" usually implies
an alternative, so what you have written means "s" or "he" doesn't it?

However, there is a word which means what you want to say. It is the
word "they" and has both singular and plural meanings, like the word
"you". Here is some evidence. I wish more people would use the word 
"they" rather than the various clumsy "he or she" type constructions
(or even worse, sexist constructions) I've seen.

Craig

Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women
Path: decwrl!sun!amdahl!gam
Subject: "he or she" - a grammatical problem solved
Posted: 2 Mar 86 23:37:15 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corp, UTS Products Group
Keywords: he she they it
Summary: "they" can used in place of "he/she" (most times)
Xref: decwrl net.nlang:4062 net.women:9815
 
I am posting this in response to the re-arrisen controvery in net.nlang
about the use of 'they' and 'their' in such statements as: "Everyone
does as they think best" verses "Everyone does as he or she thinks best."
 
This is cross-posted to net.women as it might have some relevance to
those readers.  Followups are directed to net.nlang, however.
 
The following is from "American Tongue and Cheek: A Populist Guide
to Our Language" by Jim Quinn.
 
        The OED says of "their": "Often used in relation to a singular
        substantive or pronoun denoting a person, after 'each',
        'every', 'either', 'neither',  'no one', 'every one', etc.
        Also so used instead of 'his' or 'her', when the gender
        is inclusive or uncertain."  Also "they", "them", in
        the same way.
 
        Amongh users cited, in a tradition that stretches back to the
        fourteenth century, are Fielding, Goldsmith, Thackeray,
        Walter Bagehot, Shaw, Chesterfield, Rusking, and Richardson.
 
        In no case does the OED call this usage an error....  It
        does say the usage is "not favoured by grammarians."  But
        it refers the reader to grammarian Otto Jespersen and his
        defense of the usage.  Jesperson mentions that the usage
        can be found in Congreve, Defoe, Shelley, Austen, Scott,
        George Eliot, Stevenson, Zangwill, and Oliver Wendell
        Holmes, as well as Swift and Herber Spencer.
 
        Jespersen points out that if you try to put the sentence
        "Does anybody prevent you?" into another interrogative
        formula, begining "Nobody prevents you", then "you will
        perceive that 'Nobody prevents you, does he?' is too
        definite, and you will therefore say (as Thackeray
        does, 'The Story of Pendennis', II, p. 260), "Nobody
        prevents you, do they?"
 
        ...[T]he OED does not say that the use of "they" and
        "their" with singular antecedents is "a grammatical
        error."  The OED does not even say that the use is
        "considered ungrammatical" (which is the OED's way of
        warning readers that though there is nothing wrong
        with a usage, there are lots of uninformed people ...
        who think otherwise).
 
        The OED simply notes the usage as correct.
 
        I add From "The Evolution of the English Language", by
        George H. McKnight, still more evidents.  McKnight notes
        that Richard Grant White, in "Every-day English",
        complains about the fact that the British quite often
        combine "them" and "their" and "they" with singular
        antecedent, and adds:
 
                The kinds of "misuse" here condemned in
                American use, in British use are established
                not only by long tradition but by current
                practice.  The awkward necessity so often
                met with in American speech of using the
                double pronoun "his or her" is obviated by
                the "misused" of "their"....
 
        McKnight then gives a long list of quotes illustrating
        this point: Jane Austen, Thomas De Quincey, Matthew
        Arnold, Cardinal Newman, James Stephens, Frank Swinnerton,
        Lord Dunsany, Samuel Butler in "The Way of All Flesh",
        and A. E. (Jane Austen, "Mansfield Park":  "nobody put
        themselves out of the way"; James Stephens, "The Crock
        of Gold":  "everybody has to take their chance.")
 
        I have spent a long time on this single construction, but
        I want to be very plain about this.  If you go away from
        this book with none of your cherished opinions about good
        English changed, at least you must recognize there is NO
        justification for attacking the use of plural pronouns
        with singular antecedents when the sex is uncertain or
        mixed.  For example, says Bergen Evans:
 
                Only the word "his" would be used in "every
                soldier carried his own pack", but most people
                would say "their" rather than "his" in
                "everybody brought their own lunch".  And it
                would be a violation of English idiom to say
                "was he?" in "nobody was killed, were they?"
                The use of "they" in speaking of a single
                individual is not a modern derivation of classical
                English.  It is found in the works of many
                great writers including Malory ....
 
        And another list, all of which we have heard before.
 
        Again, from the OED: "The pronoun referring to 'every one'
        [sometimes written as one word] is often plural: the
        absence of a singular pronoun of common gender rendering
        this violation of grammtical concord sometimes necessary."
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,seismo,hplabs}!amdahl!gam
 


Newsgroups: net.nlang
Path: decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!boring!steven
Subject: Re: Grammar and Spelling on the Net
Posted: 3 Mar 86 17:12:09 GMT
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam


Here we go again. Last June I posted an article quoting the Oxford English
Dictionary, and tens of worthy authors through the ages from the 1300's to
the present day, who have used 'they', 'them', 'theirs', etc as SINGULAR
gender-unspecific words. It is CORRECT English. It was only later
grammarians who tried to enforce the rule that they are plural words, and
force us to use 'he', etc. Luckily, most people have not followed their
dictates.

Illiterate? Shakespeare was just one of the many to use the form. Let
history be the judge.

Steven Pemberton, CWI, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax.uucp

--------------------------------------------------------

Here are the quotes from the OED again, for the doubters:

THEY
2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any,
no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= `he or she'). See Jespersen
Progress in Language 24.

1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf,.a psalm scape ony persone, or a
lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne.

1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any
creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues.

1749 FIELDING Tom Jones viii. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could
they help it.

1759 CHESTERF. Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a gloomy temper
..they cannot help it.

1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church if they
would.

1858 BAGEHOT Lit.Stud. (1879) II.206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they
are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety.

1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives 38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well
that they cannot help doing.

THEM
2. Often used for `him or her', referring to a singular person whose sex is
not stated, or to anybody, nobody, somebody, whoever, etc.

1742 RICHARDSON Pamela III. 127 Little did I think..to make a..complaint
against a Person very dear to you,..but dont let them be so proud..as to
make them not care how they affront everybody else.

1853 Miss YONGE Heir of Redclyffe xxliv, Nobody else..has so little to
plague them.

1874 DASENT Half a life II. 198 Whenever anyone was ill, she brewed them a
drink.

THEMSELVES
5. In concord with a singular pronoun or sb. denoting a person, in cases
where the meaning implies more than one, as when the sb. is qualified by a
distributive, or refers to either sex: = himself or herself.

a. 1464 Rolls of Parlt. V. 513/2 Inheritements, of which any of the seid
persones..was seised by theym self, or joyntly with other.

c 1489 CAXTON Sonnes of Aymon i. 39 Eche of theym..make theymselfe redy.

1533 MORE Apol. 55b, Neyther Tyndale there nor thys precher..hath by theyr
maner of expounyng..wonne them self mych wurshyp.

y. 1600 SHAKS. Lucr. 125 Eury one to rest themselues [ ed. 1594 himselfe]
betake.

1654-66 EARL ORRERY Parthen. (1676) 147 All that happened, which every one
assured themselves, would render him a large sharer in the general joy.

1874 DASENT Half a life 3 Every one likes to keep it to themselves as long
as they can.

THEIR
3. Often used in relation to a singular sb. or pronoun denoting a person,
after each, every, either, neither, no one, every one, etc. Also so used
instead of `his or her', when the gender is inclusive or uncertain. (Not
favoured by grammarians.)

13.. Cursor M. 389 (Cott.) Bath ware made sun and mon, Aither wit ther ouen
light.

c 1420 Sir Amadace (Camden) 1, Iche mon in thayre degre.

14.. Arth. & Merl. 2440 (Kolbing) Many a Sarazen lost their life.

1545 ABP. PARKER Let. to Bp. Gardiner 8 May, Thus was it agreed among us
that every president should assemble their companies.

1563 WYNGET Four Scoir Thre Quest. liv, A man or woman being lang absent fra
thair party.

1643 TRAPP Comm. Gen. xxiv. 22 Each Countrey bath their fashions, and
garnishes.

1749 FIELDING Tom Jones vii, xiv Every one in the House were in their beds.

1771 GOLDSM. Hist. Eng III. 241 Every person..now recovered their liberty.

1845 SYD. SMITH Wks. (1850) 175 Every human being must do something with
their existence.

1848 THAKERAY Van. Fair xli A person can't help their birth.

1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Studies (1879) II. 206 Nobody in their senses would
describe Gray's `Elegy' as [etc.].

1898 G.B SHAW Plays II Candida 86 It's enough to drive anyone out of their
senses.

Other quotes (Not OED)
SHAKESPEARE God send everyone their heart's desire.
THAKERAY No one prevents you, do they?
GEORGE ELIOT I shouldn't like to punish anyone, even if they'd done me
wrong.
WALT WHITMAN ..everyone shall delight us, and we them.
ELIZABETH BOWEN He did not believe it rested anybody to lie with their head
high...
LAWRENCE DURREL You do not have to understand someone in order to love them.
DORIS LESSING And how easy the way a man or woman would come in here, glance
around, find smiles and pleasant looks waiting for them, then wave and sit
down by themselves.

    [ And let's not forget Oscar Wilde's "Experience is the name everyone
    gives to their mistakes." -- J.C.]

    Thank you for pointing that out to me.  I have seen s/he used in the
    same way that he/she is used, with s/he implying the use of either she
    or he.  That's why I used it.  I should have used they.
    
    John

    
    
    Dear John, re: .43
    
    The "No excuse" term I mentioned applies to the prolific slaughter of
    the English language I have witnessed at several presentations at the
    national and international level by digital employees. I still say
    there are no excuses for such disasters. You, Mr Baker, owe digital,
    and us, as stockholders, we own part( microscopic) of digital, that you 
    give your best in your job, this means that you use the tools available
    to you to represent digital in the best light possible. Your spelling
    performance has nothing to do with your level of education nor language
    mastery, it has to do with discipline and the application of extremely
    simple and user friendly tools that digital makes available to you and 
    me. You mentioned that you do exactly that when dealing with formal
    documents, I never said nor implied otherwise and do applaud you.  
    
    I, nor noone else should correct you, we should correct ourselves,
    this is very simply done by consulting various tools such as
    dictionaries and various user friendly software packages. I believe
    the spelling issue is an issue of discipline and laissez-faire and
    as such we as digital employees DO have an obligation to do our best
    for digital. The spelling issue is NOT an issue of education nor
    language proficiency.
    
    I do agree that corrections, if any, should be addressed off-notes.
    
       
    Franc. " For Your Stock Only" 

Re:                  <<< Note 1591.51 by RAVEN1::DJENNAS >>>

>    The "No excuse" term I mentioned applies to the prolific slaughter of
>    the English language I have witnessed at several presentations at the
>    national and international level by digital employees...

I still think the best (worst? :-) I ever saw appeared several times in a 
presentation on LAT (well before its introduction) which kept talking about 

	"Increasing Digital's presents in the Marketplace."

-  David

    re: irregardless
    
    I haven't checked recently, but as of 1980 or so, the term
    "irregardless" was listed in certain dictionaries as a regional
    alternative to the word "regardless".  A friend of mine from SW
    Pennsylvania despised the fact that many of his neighbors and family
    members used the term, which prompted him to search a few dictionaries.
    As I recall, only certain dictionaries included the term.
    
    Irregardless, I never use the word.  8^}
    
    -- Russ
    
    PS/ I've always felt that an occasional typo or spelling mistake is no
    big deal in informal communication (like NOTES).  I freely admit that I
    occasionally err in the use of there/their/they're in informal
    communications because I am frequently too busy to spend much time re-
    reading my text for absolute accuracy (and I am often thinking much faster
    than my fingers can type).
    
    HOWEVER (caps intended 8^), errors in FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS should NOT
    be tolerated!  Formal documents MUST be checked for accuracy!  Spelling
    errors in documents to be read by customers indicate that the sender
    (i.e., Digital) has questionable quality practices -- especially when
    spell-check software abounds.
    
    We can't have absolute perfection for informal communications.  Note how
    few people are insisting on perfect grammar for internal communications.
    Why?  Because "perfect" grammar is very difficult (how many people
    would like a mail message stating that their latest note suffered from
    a change of voice in the second paragraph?  8^).
    
    Some people draw the line at spelling.  Others freak out at word usage
    ("there", "their", etc.).  Others, (rightfully, IMHO) are concerned
    that too much emphasis on correct English may suppress information from
    non-native speakers of the language.
    
    Bottom line: if you think someone needs help understanding some part of 
    the language, try offering them some HELP -- not criticism -- OFFLINE.
    If it's a typo or momentary misfire of the brain cells, skip it and 
    continue.
    
    IM(often -- but not always -- H)O   8^)
    
    -- Russ

    re: .49
    
    >>        George H. McKnight, still more evidents.  McKnight notes
                                             ^^^^^^^^^
    The presents of this word is amusing ...
    
    8^)
    
    Scooter

    It strikes me that the real problem in most of the internal memos I
    recieve is not spelling, but a reliance on "Buzz words and phrases" to
    obscure the issue instead of dealing with it.  It also seems to me that
    the higher up the corporate ladder the author, the worse this tendancy
    is.  I can forgive a spelling error in a hastily written note, but can
    not comprehend most of the documents from the top level managers.  It
    seems to me that the idea behind written documents or verbal
    presentations is to EFFECTIVELY communicate ones ideas, not cover them
    in mindless conjuntions of random phrases!. ( for example: the use of
    the term Transition Package instead of Severance Pay!)  If we all
    started sending these memo back to the author with a request for
    clarification, we may yet save the Amazon Rain Forest.

    I like buzz words.
    
    
    buzz

    Any evidence that the author of a document cares too little about the
    audience to work at communicating effectively is distressing.  Spelling
    errors, bad grammar, misuse of homonyms, mixed metaphors, empty
    phrases, buzz words are all symptoms of the same phenomenon,
    specifically, the originator of the message or document is not a good
    communicator.  
    
    What is the rational response to a poor communication?  
    
    In my opinion, there are four choices:
    
    a) Ignore the message or document that treats its audience with
    disrespect.  This is what I call "depending on natural selection".  If
    a person's communications fail often enough, the person will fail to
    achieve his or her goals, and will (eventually) suffer the consequences
    of his or her failure.
    
    b) Try to ignore the errors and look for the meaning.  This is
    appropriate if you believe that the message is important enough to
    spend the effort to separate signal from noise.
    
    c) Provide private feedback to the author about what bothers you.  This
    is usually the most supportive thing one can do.  The author may or may
    not appreciate your effort, but your conscience is clear.
    
    d) Castigate the author in public, the equivalent of putting him or her
    into stocks or branding, as practiced in colonial times.  Besides
    putting the author on the defensive, you also will stimulate the
    "defend the underdog" syndrome.  That may lead to some exciting, but
    unproductive arguments, like this string.
    
    fwiw,
    
    Dick

All of this harping on spelling is bad for the moral of the troops...

Lee

    As a technology? company, one might think that the commonly available
    spell checker in all-in-1 could be used! Do people not care? or do they
    not even recognize or suspect a spelling error? (Now there'a a
    question!!). As to buzzwords & spelling/errors.... do they not both
    root in a common swamp of complacency? 

    The interesting thing about buzzwords is how fast they travel.
    
    One week you'll hear some guy in a suit say "paradigm shift",
    and the next week they'll all be saying it.   Seems to
    me that in some circles, your pay rise is tied to using
    the same buzzwords as the boss does.
    
    Of course, us software engineers don't use buzzwords.  We
    use rational, meaningful technical language with precise
    and clear meaning.

    Where is it that they spell Buissiness (Business) ?  
    
    
    
    
    
    buzz
    
    
    

    Gee, you're right!  They shouldn't have put the IS into 'business' like
    that.  Well, you'll be happy to know that at this very moment they are
    removing all those nasty IS's all across the company ...  ;^)
    
    Steve