atw: Re: Youse
- From: "Virtue, Chris" <Chris.Virtue@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:14:21 +1100
Interesting read, Christine.
It reminds me of how I was able to read Ulysses at my third attempt because I
stopped reading it and started listening to it.
Commonwealth Bank
Chris Virtue
Process Documentation
Group Property
Level 3, 120 Pitt St
Sydney
P: 02 9312 3928
M: 0413 189 976
E: chris.virtue@xxxxxxxxxx
Our vision is to be Australia's finest financial services organisation through
excelling in customer service.
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christine Kent
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 16:06
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse
I have been reading information from Haiti on what is going on in Haiti. It is
quite hard to read until you get into a West Indian style accent, at which
stage it does start to flow a bit better, but the difference in vocabulary and
grammatical construction is still tricky. Try reading this. The author is a
highly educated.
http://open.salon.com/blog/ezili_danto/2009/10/13/oil_in_haiti_-_economic_reasons_for_the_unus_occupation
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry Dowling
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 3:56 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse
high jeffrey,
eye didn sey hee wos tryin to be eleet. I just said that inglish is hour
languige, and aye bee leave their are write and rong weys of yousing it. I
except tthat ewe doant agry wiv that.
I believe it was you who raised the issue of why don't we deride folk for not
knowing enough physics. I pointed out that we might if we were experts and they
were pretending to be. I don't deride people for not knowing enough English,
but I do feel free to criticise those who pretend to be well-versed, but don't
show their skills.
I know of a lot of folk who are a lot smarter than me, but whose English is
crap. That's why they aren't (or shouldn't be) technical writers, and I am.
They design and fix electronics or do other highly technical things that,
despite me having an electrical engineering degree, I could never do. If they
want to deride my engineering skills, go ahead. The good thing is, they know
enough English to pick up some of my mistakes and I know enough engineering to
pick up some of theirs.
I really couldn't give a toss how people use language in their conversations,
but if a manual said "Youse of got to make sure the principle circuit
braker..." -- unless there was a lot of humour in the rest of the manual, I'd
seriously doubt the quality of the product.
I'm saying that rather than all of us moving to the lowest common denominator
as it seems you would prefer, those of us who are professional writers should
comply with commonly accepted rules, as decreed by commonly accepted
authorities such as whatever dictionary we choose and whatever style manual or
other guides we may choose. At least if some of us get things "right", others
may be able to learn. That way more folk may be able to improve their skills
rather than deskilling the rest of us.
The best way of communicating is using the best and most appropriate word for
your meaning. Confusing principle and principal is not the best way of
communicating. If people don't know any better, it is possibly the best way for
them, but they should not be professional writers.
And, yes, if the commonly accepted dictionaries start saying that youse is the
standard plural of you, with you only being singular, then I'll start using it,
too.
But as I said before "non-standard" is dictionary speak for that word you don't
use for language.
I really think that you are starting to enter weasel-word territory when you
don't like 'wrong' or 'incorrect'. Ask an English teacher if there are rights
and wrongs in language. Maybe there are fewer in communcations.
buy,
teri
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Geoffrey Marnell
Sent: Wednesday, 3 February 2010 11:55 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse
Terry, two points:
The Altona lad who uses "youse' is not trying to be an elite writer.
Why should I be advocating the "elimination of one or the other of to/too,
principle/principal, compliment/complement, effect/affect... because so many
people use them in the wrong way". For a start, I don't use the word "wrong"
when it comes to language. There is conventional use and unconventional use.
Secondly, how many is "many"?. If a critical mass of users use "principle" for
both "principle" and "principal", then yes, I would jettison the distinction.
As I said on Monday, I am no longer using the en dash for most of my audiences
because they will not understand its use. Likewise transition words like
"disinterested" and "regular". What is the point in writing "regular" and
meaning "periodically" when most of my readers will think I mean "frequently".
Likewise, why write "principal" when, say, 90% of my readers won't understand
it because it has fallen into the archaic or obsolete categories? I'm not
advocating the distinction now, just on the grounds that some people confuse
the distinction. But if, at some time, the distinction is not understood by
most of my audience, then, yes, goodbye to the distinction. Just as I've said
goodbye to "regular".
As I keep on saying, it comes done to communication, not to some weird concept
of linguistic correctness.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: www.abelard.com.au<http://www.abelard.com.au/>
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
________________________________
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Terry Dowling
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 12:49 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Youse
I'm sure there is a band of elite physicists who do turn up (look down) their
noses at folk attempting to be elite physicists, but without the skill to back
them up.
If you remember the TV national IQ test from a few years back, there was a
comment on the station web site from someone saying something along the lines
of "I just got a PhD in English, yet my IQ is only 90. Should I be worried?"
Someone (an elite physicist, perhaps) replied that the universtiy that issued
the PhD should be more worried.
Let's face it. These days most of us a professional autists. We specialise into
a narrow field and know very little about much else. However, living in an
English speaking country, the language is one of the base measures, giving the
reading and writing of the three R's. I know we all tend to get a little snobby
about people who can't add up, too -- that being the final R.
Now, Geoff, are you also rooting for combining (or elimination of one or the
other) of to/too, principle/principal, compliment/complement, effect/affect...
because so many people use them in the wrong way?
So why do we turn up our noses at the folk who got mediocre English training,
but not at those who got mediocre physics training?
************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE *****************************
This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains
information which may be
confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email,
do not use or
disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your
system. Unless
specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or
commitment by the sender
or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries.
We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au.
If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please
reply to this
e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line.
**************************************************************
Other related posts:
