And so it shall come to pass Eternal September appears 'mongst the touchscreens of the great pretenders. Woe to the spelling fanatics and grammar Nazis.
The beast of two fingers reigns supreme.
The model M's will clack no more.
Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
241–250 of 316 posts
Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone uses grammar. What you're describing is elitism and elevating one particular dialect above all others.
According to the wide definition of grammar, everyone uses some grammar, but nevertheless it's not a category error to say "*this sentence got grammar mistake". When we speak about the grammar for a language/dialect we imply a prescribed "correct" grammar for a particular community of speakers.
> speak about the grammar for a language/dialect we imply a prescribed "correct" grammar
Not prescribed, rather observed. At least in English where there is no language authority and dictionaries present usage.
The situation is even stranger in Norway where there is a prescribed form but where dialects have essentially equal rights so that the prescription really applies only to formal written Norwegian.
Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#243Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really see that as the same thing as what the article was pointing out. Those are shibboleths that only an insider would know. You have to get the pronunciation of Cholmondeley or Couch "right" to pass for an insider. The random misspellings, missing spaces, sloppy grammar, etc in the examples in the article seem different to me. Misspelling "en route" as "enriewu" doesn't show, "look, I know the secret count…
Or its a simple signifier that the author was human, and that a real person is trying to convince you of something. I've experimented with putting minor grammar mistakes into my work of the sort that would be frowned upon, but are not strictly invalid. The existence of any kind of mistake makes the work sound "human".
Don't know about that as a general rule, since spam messages have had typos and mistakes in them since forever, and its precisely what marks them as not trustworthy.
Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#245Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking the time to craft a well-formed message requires a degree of empathy. The golden rule suggests that we write messages in a way that dignifies the recipient. The Global Elite may lack these traits and sensibilities.
Same reason we all still wear suits I guess.
Yep. By going out of your way to dress up for an important occasion, you signify that you understand its special nature and are trying to help honor that.
Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#247British aristocracy has been pronouncing their own surnames wrong for centuries on purpose. Cholmondeley is "Chumley" Featherstonehaugh is "Fanshaw." If you read it phonetically you mark yourself as an outsider. The misstake is the membership card. (Heck, even in Portland we locals hear about misprouncing Couch St probably every year in local press as some bar for membership to our own locals only vibe.)
Is it the same reason as Worcestershire mapped to "wooster" ?
Well, I wouldn't piss on the British for that, when Louisville is pronounced "LOO-vul" and not "Lou-iss-ville".
And don't get me started on Des Moines, Boise, La Jolla (at least that has an excuse), Spokane, Versailles, Tucson, Willamette, ...
And the worst of all: Arkansas.
Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#248Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#249Re: Why the global elite gave up on spelling and grammar
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their schedules are full of leisure , and they can't be arsed to extend even the oz of courteous effort that proper punctuation and grammar require. And their class all recognize it. Possibly it's a class marker. Here, I have to carefully articulate my point because I am desperately trying to convince you not to carry water for the Epstein a class.
What's your point? That everyone with a lot of wealth lives exactly the same, and is comparable to Epstein? I'm not sure I understand.
I mean, yeah. Epstein isn't an abberation, he's typical C-level management. They say "power corrupts", but I think it warps social reality. They're all complicit in the maintainance of a political economy that facilitates the concentration of power in a way that obviates consent.