Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

hbr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–59 of 59 posts

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#51

Post by mc32 »

hgsgm wrote: post #40
mc32 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-native speakers often have better spelling than native speakers, though grammar mistakes do become apparent in non-native speakers. It grates me when I have to read business communication with poor spelling or poor grammar, especially when done by native speakers --just as much as it grates native speakers of non-English languages when I attempt to speak their language non-natively and they admonish me for my non…

There is no such thing as a grammar mistake , only a grammar inconsistency . Intelligent people use grammar consistently up to the moment where that consistency impedes clear communication. A grammar "mistake" is a foreign dialect. Unintelligent people babble wisps of ideas and leave it to the listener to make sense of them.

I disagree. When I took foreign language classes I wanted to apply the prescribed/common grammar rules, but I mistakenly used them incorrectly. I wanted to do apply the rules as a native would, but I got it wrong despite my desire to get it right. Therefore I classify that as a mis-take.

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#52

Post by liquidk »

randomcarbloke wrote: post #42
mc32 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-native speakers often have better spelling than native speakers, though grammar mistakes do become apparent in non-native speakers. It grates me when I have to read business communication with poor spelling or poor grammar, especially when done by native speakers --just as much as it grates native speakers of non-English languages when I attempt to speak their language non-natively and they admonish me for my non…

agreed, non-native speakers see the rules where native speakers do not.

I suspect this is a bit of a generalization. While learning and seeing the rules is an essential part of bootstrapping the learning os a new language, at some point for both efficiency and style, it'll become second nature and awareness of the rules fades away almost as necessity.

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#53

Post by liquidk »

hgsgm wrote: post #40
mc32 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-native speakers often have better spelling than native speakers, though grammar mistakes do become apparent in non-native speakers. It grates me when I have to read business communication with poor spelling or poor grammar, especially when done by native speakers --just as much as it grates native speakers of non-English languages when I attempt to speak their language non-natively and they admonish me for my non…

There is no such thing as a grammar mistake , only a grammar inconsistency . Intelligent people use grammar consistently up to the moment where that consistency impedes clear communication. A grammar "mistake" is a foreign dialect. Unintelligent people babble wisps of ideas and leave it to the listener to make sense of them.

It depends. English is a lot more tolerant of inconsistencies than latin based languages, and the grammar rules are more disperse. Typically in latin based languages the rules are stricter, and it is less socially acceptable to violate them. English is surprisingly tolerant both in the rules and the social acceptance of not following them.

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#54

Post by mc32 »

liquidk wrote: post #53
hgsgm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as a grammar mistake , only a grammar inconsistency . Intelligent people use grammar consistently up to the moment where that consistency impedes clear communication. A grammar "mistake" is a foreign dialect. Unintelligent people babble wisps of ideas and leave it to the listener to make sense of them.

It depends. English is a lot more tolerant of inconsistencies than latin based languages, and the grammar rules are more disperse. Typically in latin based languages the rules are stricter, and it is less socially acceptable to violate them. English is surprisingly tolerant both in the rules and the social acceptance of not following them.

It's a good observation. In my experience, often speakers of non-English will suggest that we switch to English because they feel uncomfortable with my mistakes in their language, rather then put up with my attempt at speaking their language. English speakers don't typically do this even when they are versed in a second language.

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#55

Post by ryandrake »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #49
liquidk wrote: post #30

Unfortunately this is a fairly shortsighted and superficial article which results in severely reducing the pool of people you can work with to a native speaker heavy demographic. The core of the problem is that it assumed care for detail in a domain the writer of the article is comfortable with, translates to care for detail in every other domain. I find this to be a particular self centric view of the world. It is s…

Language is a tool. If you are careless with one tool, it is extremely likely that you will be careless with others. This is why the military gets very picky with trivial issues like making your bed (or "rack") - if you're careless with the little (and easily checked) things, you're likely to be careless with the important things. > The brown M&M’s principle is the idea that small details can sometimes serve as usefu…

This is the way I see it, too. It speaks to someone's attention to detail. If you are going to use "there," "their," and "they're" carelessly or interchangeably, or "your" and "you're," or "than" and "then," what else are you going to do carelessly on the job?

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#56

Post by ryandrake »

brezelnbitte wrote: post #26

His argument is based on an invalid assumption that grammar and languages is immutable or at least that there is only a single source of truth but that is not the case. Language varies with the geography and age and continually evolves and changes. As long as the idea gets across that’s all that matters. No one will mistake too for to so it’s pointless to care. I wonder if the grammar test is still used because for a…

"Language evolves" is a good reason for why we stop using archaic words, and why new words enter the vocabulary. Nobody says "whichsoever" anymore, but people do say "microwave" because language evolves.

When someone confuses one word for another (they're vs. there vs. their), that's not language evolving. It's someone making a mistake and confusing one word for another.

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#57

Post by red-iron-pine »

randomcarbloke wrote: post #42
mc32 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-native speakers often have better spelling than native speakers, though grammar mistakes do become apparent in non-native speakers. It grates me when I have to read business communication with poor spelling or poor grammar, especially when done by native speakers --just as much as it grates native speakers of non-English languages when I attempt to speak their language non-natively and they admonish me for my non…

agreed, non-native speakers see the rules where native speakers do not.

Or put another way, the native speakers have learned to stop following the formal rules and fall into slang, regional dialects, etc.

The non-native speakers only have experience with the more formal approaches. Over time you can see them pick up the local idioms.

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#58

Post by modestygrime »

ltanfr wrote: post #24
modestygrime wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone using to vs too is not misspelling a word; they don't know the difference between two words. That's a grammar mistake. Would you say this is a misspelling? "I hope they share there food with me."

No, it is not. Spelling is the lexer's business, parsing is the grammar's business. "I hope they share there food with me." Of course this is a misspelling.

This is not a misspelling. A person who would write this sentence does not know the difference between there and their. They do not think that their is spelt there.

Re: I won’t hire people who use poor grammar (2012)

#59

Post by molotovh »

gerbilly wrote: post #20

I remember writing what I felt was thoughtful essay for a history class I took in first year UNI. I did a lot of research, and being a CS major, I Think I crafted a solid logical argument. The week after the TA started complaining about people's grammar, specifically saying that you can't communicate you ideas if you can't form grammatically correct sentences. She specifically called out the difference between 'it's'…

Since we're discussing pedantic grammar rules here anyway (sorry): the problem here is not that the rule is inconsistent, but rather that you are applying the wrong rule.

"Its" is not merely a modification of the possessive noun like "Dave's". "Its" is a possessive pronoun like "his" or "her", a separate (but related) class of word. We don't write "he's car" or "she's car", so we also don't write "it's car".

But that said, this is one is tricky specifically because the accepted possessive pronoun so closely resembles a modified possessive noun. I agree that your logic at least makes sense and I think that makes "its/it's" the least offensive of the common grammar mistakes. I don't see it as nearly the same degree of mistake as "your/you're" "two/to/too" or "there/their/they're".

For example, if you were discussing the soundtrack of a movie about a killer clown demon, it would be entirely appropriate to say "It's soundtrack is well-produced." :-)

Post reply on HN