atw: Re: Youse
- From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:17:35 +1100
And do you really think, Terry, that your readers who don't understand your
use of "principal" are going to go away and look it up and learn what it
means? (Are you still using the virgule because once upon a time it was a
useful punctuation mark?) Our goal is convey information, not to educate
our readers. And why use words (and punctuation marks) that have fallen by
the wayside just because, fifty or hundred years ago, they had specific
meanings that they don't have now. If "principal" is archaic in 2110, then a
writer at that time would not be a good writer if they used it just because
once upon a time it was a useful word.
"Lowest common denominator"? Where on earth did you get the idea that that
is where I am trying to drag the language? Have you been sleeping? "Youse"
is adding to the language, not taking something away. And if someone
proposes some new addition to the language and it provided additional
discriminatory or explanatory power, I'd be in favour of that too.
Here's a thought experiment: Lyn Truss is dying of an incurable disease, but
she's made so much money from Eats, Shoots and Fleece my Readers that she
can afford to go on a cryonics program. They wake her up in 400 years after
a cure for her disease has been found. Lyn writes another book, following
all the supposedly immutable rules she fussed about back in 2003 or
whenever. She hands it over to a publisher and the publisher finds it as
indigestible as we find Shakespeare today. Would call Lyn Truss, in 2410, a
good writer? She's followed all the rules current now, ,in 2010. But, alas,
no-one in 2410 can understand her.
Can I say it one more time: communicating with your readers is infinitely
more useful than writing according to inflexible rules of grammar, meaning,
punctuation and the like.
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> 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 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: <http://www.abelard.com.au/> 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?
Other related posts:
