Illiteracy in America
08-04-2002, 08:26 PM
#76
Pro
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Harrisonburg, VA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kenny - I have only seen commercials for Monk, but it looks hilarious, I just hope that I am NOT THAT BAD! 
Z-Man: I have read several Mark Twain pieces, thought not willingly (requirements for classes when I was in H.S.). Anyway, Huckelberry Fin (or some such spelling of his name), took me 3 weeks to read (several hours a day). At several points I almost broke down in tears, the language was so frustrating. Though that book made me hat Twain (in an affectionate way), other books with souther style have not given me such a problem. To Kill a Mockingbird was one, where there was a southern dialect that was not so heavy it detracted from the book.
Manning: Hemingway was one of my favorite authors several years back (it has been a long time since I've read a Hemmingway). I never was big on Faulkner, but he did have an ellogant way with words (the ones I've read anyway), just too affluent for me! I am not familiar with any works by Miller or Joyce (familiar with who they are, and what they wrote, just never read anything by them).
Skip: You've always shown an ability to write on Rennlist, I can safely say I've never spoken your name in disdain while trying to figure out what the hell you meant! Though on the other hand, the *** that wrote what you quoted, got my vote for a Darwain award!
Z-Man: I have read several Mark Twain pieces, thought not willingly (requirements for classes when I was in H.S.). Anyway, Huckelberry Fin (or some such spelling of his name), took me 3 weeks to read (several hours a day). At several points I almost broke down in tears, the language was so frustrating. Though that book made me hat Twain (in an affectionate way), other books with souther style have not given me such a problem. To Kill a Mockingbird was one, where there was a southern dialect that was not so heavy it detracted from the book.
Manning: Hemingway was one of my favorite authors several years back (it has been a long time since I've read a Hemmingway). I never was big on Faulkner, but he did have an ellogant way with words (the ones I've read anyway), just too affluent for me!
I am not familiar with any works by Miller or Joyce (familiar with who they are, and what they wrote, just never read anything by them). Skip: You've always shown an ability to write on Rennlist, I can safely say I've never spoken your name in disdain while trying to figure out what the hell you meant! Though on the other hand, the *** that wrote what you quoted, got my vote for a Darwain award!
08-04-2002, 10:25 PM
#77
Deer Slayer
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Twain was widely pilloried for hs works, accused of decimating the language. He (correctly) defended it as reportage, essentially.
I have no issues with colloquial English. It provides us with our richest idiom. But there is a difference between idiomatic usage and incorrect usage.
Writing "breaks" when you mean "brakes" is an example of something bad, label it how you will. It's not an example of rich idiom.
Sho' 'nuff t'isn't.
See y'all o'er twonder.
Thaddeus
I have no issues with colloquial English. It provides us with our richest idiom. But there is a difference between idiomatic usage and incorrect usage.
Writing "breaks" when you mean "brakes" is an example of something bad, label it how you will. It's not an example of rich idiom.
Sho' 'nuff t'isn't.
See y'all o'er twonder.
Thaddeus
08-05-2002, 04:07 PM
#79
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Virtually Everywhere...
Posts: 4,820
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
I'll pull back on the reins a bit, and agree that it's a shame that phonic spelling is on the rise. Though I do know what they mean, it's a chore sometimes to translate. My defense: have that misspelling/misrepresentation be addressed in the answer, or further questioning... spell it right for them, and allow the light to be illuminated.
As an example: Keith just spelled "swey" wrong - truth is, they shouldn't even be referred to as sway bars - "anti-roll" is a better descriptive term, and "stabilizer" is the most correct term since it is what Porsche calls them. All the same stuff... I knew what he meant... It's now his choice to make that adjustment to his vocabulary, or not.
ME
As an example: Keith just spelled "swey" wrong - truth is, they shouldn't even be referred to as sway bars - "anti-roll" is a better descriptive term, and "stabilizer" is the most correct term since it is what Porsche calls them. All the same stuff... I knew what he meant... It's now his choice to make that adjustment to his vocabulary, or not.
ME
08-05-2002, 04:52 PM
#80
You know Skip, your right. Trouble is folks get even more bowed up when you call them on it to begin with than when you rant in general as has been done here.
And what's worse is that it is other folks who get bent about it at time, not the person you are correcting. Remember when I corrected you for commenting on a shocks dampening ability? You were OK with being corrected, but a few other people jumped up my *** for picking on you, which I wasn't.
And what's worse is that it is other folks who get bent about it at time, not the person you are correcting. Remember when I corrected you for commenting on a shocks dampening ability? You were OK with being corrected, but a few other people jumped up my *** for picking on you, which I wasn't.
08-08-2002, 02:59 PM
#83
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sackville, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,362
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
I have a question that may open a can o' worms....
Why is TV so bad??? Many people here have referred to TV and/or the national average people watch TV and I was curious as to why reading a book is always considered paramount to the "boob tube"??
I can see how actually "seeing" a word/sentence in print would be better than watching flashing images (when it comes to learning grammar/spelling, etc) - but why is the info that stems from the tube any worse than that which flows from pages??
Just curious to see what people think concerning TV's role in the downfall of illiteracy.....
944S Boyeee
Why is TV so bad??? Many people here have referred to TV and/or the national average people watch TV and I was curious as to why reading a book is always considered paramount to the "boob tube"??
I can see how actually "seeing" a word/sentence in print would be better than watching flashing images (when it comes to learning grammar/spelling, etc) - but why is the info that stems from the tube any worse than that which flows from pages??
Just curious to see what people think concerning TV's role in the downfall of illiteracy.....
944S Boyeee
08-08-2002, 03:27 PM
#84
Well, I'll take a stab at this. I think when folks comment on the evils of television, they are referring to mindless drivel like most of what is on MTV. Ironically, I would bet that a lot of the people who disparaged TV in this thread also bemoaned the demise of SpeedVision in favor of the NASCAR Channel, I mean Speed Channel.
I personally feel TV can offer a lot, such as PBS and History Channel, etc. But for some reason books are seen as more credible.
I do think that it is as necessary to read and write a language to learn it as it is to hear the language. I believe if you craft your written words carefully and eloguently you are more likely to also be an elegant and eloguent speaker. Of course I could be wrong, since I feel I write well, but I speak like a sailor.
I personally feel TV can offer a lot, such as PBS and History Channel, etc. But for some reason books are seen as more credible.
I do think that it is as necessary to read and write a language to learn it as it is to hear the language. I believe if you craft your written words carefully and eloguently you are more likely to also be an elegant and eloguent speaker. Of course I could be wrong, since I feel I write well, but I speak like a sailor.
08-08-2002, 03:50 PM
#85
Race Director
[quote]Originally posted by 944S Boyeee:
<strong>I have a question that may open a can o' worms....
Why is TV so bad??? Many people here have referred to TV and/or the national average people watch TV and I was curious as to why reading a book is always considered paramount to the "boob tube"??
I can see how actually "seeing" a word/sentence in print would be better than watching flashing images (when it comes to learning grammar/spelling, etc) - but why is the info that stems from the tube any worse than that which flows from pages??
Just curious to see what people think concerning TV's role in the downfall of illiteracy.....
944S Boyeee</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I can think of a few reasons. Beside the fact that much of TV is mindless drivel, what redeeming television that exists still won't help you read and write. Reading books, on the other hand, does IMHO.
Why? Books are typically well edited (although that is certainly slipping today) and you get to see proper usage of the language. As I also stated before, I think the written word tends to be more deliberate. It has become acceptable for the spoken word to be more casual, and along with that, less correct. The written word tends to be significantly more succinct. How many times have you spoken with someone who takes paragraphs to say what could be said in a sentance or two?
Unfortunately today (and probably through all of time I suppose), we not only accept more casual speech, but more than ever we find people not only accepting it in the written word, but using it in the written word.
So, is this all part of an elitest attitude? I guess that all depends upon whether you consider holding yourself and others to a higher standard in anything is elitest. Most of us have standards in life and we have different standards in different areas. Should folks with a higher standard be forced to accept someone else's lower standard is the real question (we all accept something lower than our standard in most areas of our lives just to get along with others, but should it be forced?).
Enough philosophy. Time to eat. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
<strong>I have a question that may open a can o' worms....
Why is TV so bad??? Many people here have referred to TV and/or the national average people watch TV and I was curious as to why reading a book is always considered paramount to the "boob tube"??
I can see how actually "seeing" a word/sentence in print would be better than watching flashing images (when it comes to learning grammar/spelling, etc) - but why is the info that stems from the tube any worse than that which flows from pages??
Just curious to see what people think concerning TV's role in the downfall of illiteracy.....
944S Boyeee</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I can think of a few reasons. Beside the fact that much of TV is mindless drivel, what redeeming television that exists still won't help you read and write. Reading books, on the other hand, does IMHO.
Why? Books are typically well edited (although that is certainly slipping today) and you get to see proper usage of the language. As I also stated before, I think the written word tends to be more deliberate. It has become acceptable for the spoken word to be more casual, and along with that, less correct. The written word tends to be significantly more succinct. How many times have you spoken with someone who takes paragraphs to say what could be said in a sentance or two?
Unfortunately today (and probably through all of time I suppose), we not only accept more casual speech, but more than ever we find people not only accepting it in the written word, but using it in the written word.
So, is this all part of an elitest attitude? I guess that all depends upon whether you consider holding yourself and others to a higher standard in anything is elitest. Most of us have standards in life and we have different standards in different areas. Should folks with a higher standard be forced to accept someone else's lower standard is the real question (we all accept something lower than our standard in most areas of our lives just to get along with others, but should it be forced?).
Enough philosophy. Time to eat. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
08-08-2002, 04:14 PM
#86
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: R-U-N-N-O-F-T
Posts: 2,590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's a case of your goal in life-just bumble through, go to work watch TV go to bed go to work. Many of the people this is aimed at just have a dead end life and no ambition to actually make something of themselves.
Television mostly sells to an audience that has no interest in learning anything, just wants to be mindlessly entertained, i.e. Jerry Springer, MTV, Survivor, Entertainment Tonight, Friends the list just goes on and on.
I know I could happily live with The History Channel, TLC, MSNBC and a couple others and never watch a network again.
In the words of my ex. "When I watch TV I want to be entertained not educated-I just love Titanic" she's only seen it 150 times that I know of.
Restaurant sign in Springdale Ark. Venesian Inn- huh?
Television mostly sells to an audience that has no interest in learning anything, just wants to be mindlessly entertained, i.e. Jerry Springer, MTV, Survivor, Entertainment Tonight, Friends the list just goes on and on.
I know I could happily live with The History Channel, TLC, MSNBC and a couple others and never watch a network again.
In the words of my ex. "When I watch TV I want to be entertained not educated-I just love Titanic" she's only seen it 150 times that I know of.
Restaurant sign in Springdale Ark. Venesian Inn- huh?
08-08-2002, 04:15 PM
#87
[quote] Why? Books are typically well edited (although that is certainly slipping today) and you get to see proper usage of the language. As I also stated before, I think the written word tends to be more deliberate. It has become acceptable for the spoken word to be more casual, and along with that, less correct. The written word tends to be significantly more succinct. How many times have you spoken with someone who takes paragraphs to say what could be said in a sentance or two? <hr></blockquote>
Good points. I do, however, disagree with your assertion that you get to see proper usage of the language in books (to a point). That was my point a while back about Hemingway and Joyce and the lot. Technically those writers butchered the English language. It isn't a new development, it has been happening for decades if not centuries. Someone made a point here that English is a living language and as such it is constantly changing. I have also been tried to make the point that it is evolving into a new form. This is not speculaton, this is fact. Is accepted proper written or spoken usage the same now as it was 200 years ago? Hardly, but that isn't bad.
Good points. I do, however, disagree with your assertion that you get to see proper usage of the language in books (to a point). That was my point a while back about Hemingway and Joyce and the lot. Technically those writers butchered the English language. It isn't a new development, it has been happening for decades if not centuries. Someone made a point here that English is a living language and as such it is constantly changing. I have also been tried to make the point that it is evolving into a new form. This is not speculaton, this is fact. Is accepted proper written or spoken usage the same now as it was 200 years ago? Hardly, but that isn't bad.
08-08-2002, 04:38 PM
#88
Part of the IN Crowd
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Simpsonville, SC
Posts: 4,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did this post end up here without a BIG "OT" in front of the title.
It always seems that the dumbest posts go for the longest time.
My name is Mark
And I am a Spell Check addict.
Flame on!
It always seems that the dumbest posts go for the longest time.
My name is Mark
And I am a Spell Check addict.
Flame on!
08-08-2002, 04:52 PM
#89
Race Director
[quote]Originally posted by Kool:
<strong>My name is Mark
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hi Mark! <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Kool:
<strong>And I am a Spell Check addict.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it's been how long since you've last used spell check?
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
<strong>My name is Mark
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hi Mark! <img src="graemlins/xyxwave.gif" border="0" alt="[bigbye]" />
[quote]Originally posted by Kool:
<strong>And I am a Spell Check addict.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it's been how long since you've last used spell check?
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
08-08-2002, 04:55 PM
#90
Race Director
[quote]Originally posted by Manning:
<strong>
Good points. I do, however, disagree with your assertion that you get to see proper usage of the language in books (to a point). That was my point a while back about Hemingway and Joyce and the lot. Technically those writers butchered the English language. It isn't a new development, it has been happening for decades if not centuries. Someone made a point here that English is a living language and as such it is constantly changing. I have also been tried to make the point that it is evolving into a new form. This is not speculaton, this is fact. Is accepted proper written or spoken usage the same now as it was 200 years ago? Hardly, but that isn't bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, too true. But, I think you would agree that you are 100x more likely to encounter proper use of the language in a book than on the bloody telly.
Oh, another point about that as well (to no one in particular): the more you are exposed to something, the more likely you are to embrace it. So, telly or books?
<strong>
Good points. I do, however, disagree with your assertion that you get to see proper usage of the language in books (to a point). That was my point a while back about Hemingway and Joyce and the lot. Technically those writers butchered the English language. It isn't a new development, it has been happening for decades if not centuries. Someone made a point here that English is a living language and as such it is constantly changing. I have also been tried to make the point that it is evolving into a new form. This is not speculaton, this is fact. Is accepted proper written or spoken usage the same now as it was 200 years ago? Hardly, but that isn't bad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, too true. But, I think you would agree that you are 100x more likely to encounter proper use of the language in a book than on the bloody telly.
Oh, another point about that as well (to no one in particular): the more you are exposed to something, the more likely you are to embrace it. So, telly or books?