Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ccieng2.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk From: kfk@ccieng2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Literacy Message-ID: <116@ccieng2.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-Feb-84 11:32:31 EST Article-I.D.: ccieng2.116 Posted: Mon Feb 13 11:32:31 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Feb-84 06:25:45 EST Organization: Computer Consoles Inc., Rochester, NY Lines: 60 ---------- From ihuxq!ken Tue Feb 7 14:49:21 1984 Subject: Literacy Oh, about a month ago, I plunged into the grammar debate with the battle cry, "If you can't write it right, you can't think it right." Our friend jj took this personally for some reason, and the two of us went a few rounds, which was fun. Soon thereafter, some twit posted something to the effect of "Ha-ha-ha, that's bad grammar--the proper statement is 'if you can't write it *correctly*...'" with some irrelevant ramblings about adjectives and adverbs. I didn't respond, since if said twit could not comprehend the not at all subtle difference in meaning between "do it right" and "do it correctly", there was little hope of any rational interchange. ---------- I wrote that article, Ken. The statement still contains bad grammar. You wished to modify the verb "write," and that requires use of an adverb. The reason I responded is because you took it upon yourself to flame with quite some vigor about the rather poor quality of writing with which we must deal on this network. You finished your article with this large statement, all capitalized, highlighted with asterisks. As far as your quote from Richard Mitchell is concerned, I understand exact- ly what you were trying to say when you complained about the quality of the average article on the usenet, and I applaud your attempt to convince people that they need to be more careful with their use of the language. I know what you *meant* when you said that we should "write it right." However, the mechanics are still important. Your mechanics were insufficiently used in that vehement objection of yours. Further, Mr. Mitchell evidently doesn't think that "writing it right" is all that important, as long as meaning is clear, and he advocates that people who are well-versed in the written language should be allowed much leeway; so it is contradictory for you to cite him as a supporting source when your own position claims that one must formulate one's written words correctly. (I hold the opposing viewpoint on those who are well-versed: If you are a master with the language, then you have the responsibility to be even more careful. Your writings will be read by those less gifted than yourself, and, hence, mechanics become even more important.) I have no objection whatsoever to your desire that the quality of writing should be higher, and, in fact, I have flamed a number of people through the mail about poor writing. (I generally reserve such flames for truly bad writing; most writing on the net is understandable, if poorly constructed.) The reason I pointed it out, which I explained was not intended to detract from the desire for better writing (a fact which escaped you completely), was that I think it is most inappropriate for someone to flame about other people's poor writing and then become a party to the crime himself. I agree entirely: the quality of writing on the net is quite poor. But that doesn't mean that you get a special license to commit the same offenses yourself when you get upset about the situation. P.S. I do not really wish to start up the grammar/literacy argument again. But I felt it was necessary to point out these facts a second time, since the complaint was made a second time. -- Karl Kleinpaste ...![ [seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv, rlgvax]!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk