Is bad grammar a sign of low intelligence

[Gods_Mercenary]

Barely understandable, and it took two tries to get the whole thing. Why not just write clearly, have people take you seriously and convey your message clearly?

[ZNFYRH]

Read that same sentence aloud to a group, Chris the Chees. See how many of them, on first try, correctly understand what you read. That language makes sense written down, but takes effort that most of us don't want to expend.

It's Old(e) English. The grammar and spelling doesn't fly with Modern English. Someone who tries to use altered grammar and spelling in a group where they clearly know the norm is being ignorant.

[bishop]

here's another great example of people with piss poor grammar who aren't worth reading:

Outraged Iranians protest new 300 movie

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: bishop this thread has no useful purpose.

This thread attempts to serve the purpose of self-justification.

Self-justification is frequently a form of arrogance. If a person is justified, most often that fact is evident and needs no defense.

Arrogance is an unfortunate combination of ignorance and pride...

Are you a proud person or a humble person, pam?

[bishop]

agreed... if you have to argue with people that you are a nice person and everyone else disagrees, the problem is most likely with that person and not everyone else.. i form hard opinions when i read what looks like mental diahrea, spewed out incoherently through the keyboard.

also, it this has evolved the more i've worked at higher levels - but i'm definitely a fan of people who can say what they mean in as few sentences as possible. i'd rather spend my energy understanding the point and underlying rationale, than reading through a book and then missing the point.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Chris the Chees If language such as that is understandable (and it most certainly is) then even some of the more tragic examples of presentation here can be read. PS, the extract was from Christine De Pisan, The Book of Fayttes of Armes and of Chyualrye, translated by William Caxton, edited by A. T. P. Byles, (London, 1937), p. 222.

Comparing a translation of a 14th century Italian writer to some of the posts, which I see no need to characterize, is a bit of stretch. I am willing to give any writer from six centuries ago an automatic pass.

I guess it comes down to this - if the writer has something meaningful to say, the presentation matters less and may be worth deciphering. Regrettably, many who post the most incompressible drivel with poor spelling and grammar often post the most incomprehensible content as well.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Barely understandable, and it took two tries to get the whole thing. Why not just write clearly, have people take you seriously and convey your message clearly?

As explained earlier, it is not always as easy for other people as it maybe for you, and that is not necessarily a reflection of intellect. Oh and that is an easy piece to read, if I have Raymon Lull to hand, you would see what hard is all about.

Read that same sentence aloud to a group, Chris the Chees. See how many of them, on first try, correctly understand what you read.

That, was taken from my dissertation seminar notes, I did read it aloud, which is why I had it typed up and ready to go, and unsupprisingly everyone understood what it meant (though that was to an audience of university level History students); because it is not that hard. As such, it totally destroys the argument that poor grammar and spelling (unless truly dire) affect the ability to comprehend a piece of text. If you can read a 500+ year old translation, you can manage shoddy grammar.

Oh and old English is much easier to understand when spoken than it is when read. In fact, that is the easiest way to get your head round it; read it out loud.

Lets try another, this time borrowed from a George Orwell essay: -

"Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account."

Or, if you wish to read it in it's more traditional guise: -

"I have seen something else under the sun:
The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all."

Ecclesiastes 9:11

"This is a parody, but not a very gross one."

Politics and the English Language - George Orwell

In short good grammar and spelling do not necessarily make for easy reading or simple comprehension. The entire argument that they are, is utterly bunk. They may help, but that is all they do.

The grammar and spelling doesn't fly with Modern English.

But, you can of course understand it and that was my point. Even when the rules of grammar and spelling that you live by are changed it still doesn't necessarily render the passage unreadable.

[Gods_Mercenary]

As explained earlier, it is not always as easy for other people as it maybe for you, and that is not necessarily a reflection of intellect. Oh and that is an easy piece to read, if I have Raymon Lull to hand, you would see what hard is all about.

I never said it was a reflection of intellect, but if you have the ability and still don't care enough to make a easily comprehendable piece then you are exibiting laziness at best, and at worst a lack of respect for your subject matter, your readers, and yourself. Excessive verbosity would fit the bill of bad communication, as well. I don't mind a few run on sentences or mispellings, but when you just randomly jab at keyboard keys, that's when i get annoyed.

Eclesiastes was by far easier, which I'm sure is what orwell intended, anyway.

[pam699]

completly agree with u in everything chris the chees

this debetate brought to mind an analogy which to me sums up our attagonists position

there is himmler all dress neat cleann shave short hair just the pinical of correcness siting on seat in a train
there is gandhi all unkept sitting in a chair in the same carriage
in walks all out antagonists and they see unkept gandh and well groomed normative corerct himmler so of they go and sit with himmler because he is more presentable and correct wammy himmmler then puls a leaver and they are all of the auswitshe

where they could have got wisdom from unkept ghandi they got gas from well presented himmler

we where all told never judge a book by its cover every one agrees utill
it comes to how people look and how people write
every one still judges a book by its cover l
AND THEY JUST NEVER LEARN UNTILL A HIMMLER WELL NORMATIVE LOOKING DUDE RIPES THEM OFF

[Gods_Mercenary]

Ghandi expressed his views clearly. And I probably would rather sit next to himmler, I could talk with Ghandi across the carriage and not smell him, I don't think evil is transmitted by physical proximity.

Anyway, it's not like himmler was elected, so he's not a good example. Ghandi was the leader of a popular movement, though.

[ZNFYRH]

Sorry, pam669, but I'm putting you on ignore. I can't subject myself to your posts. All I caught was that you agree with Chris, yet you are posting the way you do intentionally. Personally, I find it disrespectful to continue doing something when people have asked you to cease.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Ghandi expressed his views clearly. And I probably would rather sit next to himmler, I could talk with Ghandi across the carriage and not smell him, I don't think evil is transmitted by physical proximity. Anyway, it's not like himmler was elected, so he's not a good example. Ghandi was the leader of a popular movement, though.

You have missed the point, the point is that you have admitted a tendency to judge a book by it's cover. Appearance is, of course, deceptive.

I never said it was a reflection of intellect

No, but you implied that and worse when you proposed the supposition that poorly spelled and grammatically inferior literature are A) laughable and B) criteria for not being taken 'seriously'.

but if you have the ability and still don't care enough to make a easily comprehendable piece then you are exibiting laziness at best,

You have the ability to read and comprehend my atrocious spelling, and material considerably less manageable texts (guess what, I actually do put effort in - though it may not be apparent), as Christine De Pisan proved. Does that not suggest that your immediate leap to judgement is, by the same token, laziness at best?

Comparing a translation of a 14th century Italian writer to some of the posts, which I see no need to characterize, is a bit of stretch.

Not really, both maybe difficult to read, but by the same token both are possible and both may (or may not) be worth reading. Illustrating this point, was of course the motivation behind my posting it.

Eclesiastes was by far easier, which I'm sure is what orwell intended, anyway.

Exactly. Just because something is written in a manner which conforms to the 'rules' and looks 'smart' does not make it easy to read nor does it mean that it may not be just as easy to decipher if written differently. It also illustrates that different style of writing can totally alter the appearance of a piece of writing, when in reality the message is exactly the same.

[Scribbler1]

This has been a most interesting thread. So far, what I'm getting out of it is that Pam, while admitting he/she uses atrocious grammar, spelling and displays an utter contempt for punctuation, would rather argue about how he/she is perceived than LEARN to communicate properly.

If you have a point to make, and no one understands you, you have NOT made any point at all.

No, bad grammar is not synonymous with a lack of intelligence, but DEFENDING a lack of ability to communicate IS. If you want to come across as intelligent, at least make the EFFORT to communicate in the manner everyone else understands. You've been here long enough to see how almost everyone else posts and YOU are the outsider here. And nobody is going to download a "gibberish to English" translator program. I KNOW Babelfish doesn't cover this.

At this point it isn't worth the effort to decode your posts. You might be BRILLIANT, but I guess I'll never know that.

[RickSp]

Quote by: RickSp Comparing a translation of a 14th century Italian writer to some of the posts, which I see no need to characterize, is a bit of stretch.

Quote by: Chris the Chees Not really, both maybe difficult to read, but by the same token both are possible and both may (or may not) be worth reading. Illustrating this point, was of course the motivation behind my posting it.

That is preposterous. You attempt to make a point by using what appears to be a Middle English translation of an Italian writer writing in French to compare it to certain drivel written on these boards.

This is silly on several levels.

1. The writer you quoted had something meaningful to say or else her work would not have survived these six centuries. Obviously, this is not likely of any of the posts within this thread.

2. There is no indication that the original work, in French, or the translation, in Middle English, was in anything other than proper grammatical form when it was published. It seems decidedly odd to use a work which represented proper usage for the period as an example in a discussion of the misuse of language today.

The point is, poor communication is poor communication whether it is intentional bad grammar and spelling or the unduly arcane and pointlessly obtuse language of academia.

[Gods_Mercenary]

No, but you implied that and worse when you proposed the supposition that poorly spelled and grammatically inferior literature are A) laughable and B) criteria for not being taken 'seriously'.

Bad communication period will make critical people feel this way, I feel the same way about excessive verbosity as I do about grammatical atrocities that impede communication. If you have the ability to communicate clearly, not taking that route is either arrogant or careless.

You have the ability to read and comprehend my atrocious spelling, and material considerably less manageable texts (guess what, I actually do put effort in - though it may not be apparent), as Christine De Pisan proved. Does that not suggest that your immediate leap to judgement is, by the same token, laziness at best?

My ability to comprehend is somewhat slowed, and reading it is far more tiring than reading a modern, clearly expressed document. As a writer, your readers are not obliated to read your work, doing everything you can to accomodate their ease of comprehension is just plain intelligent.

[ZNFYRH]

Scribbler,

Your post is along the same track as the point I was making... that intentionally using bad grammar and spelling is the problem.

[pam699]

if there is intention
it might be to show how silly and arrogant u all are about bad grammer
u are all judge the message by the messenger
the book by the cover
the person by how neat he is
and with gandhi would rather sit next to himmler
what it al points out is you are demonstrating your utter stupidity in being prepared to not get knowldseg wisdom if it aint presented in the format u want-that must be the most stupid and idiotic psitions about knowl;deg and wisdom any one could come across
the bad grammerian is not low in intelligence but the idiot that will not learn anything unless it is presented in the corect format

[pam699]

example
if u and your like where teachers of say einstrien and say einstein was bad at grammer with a speach imperdinment you would have failed him he would have ended up shoveliing sh.t somewhere and the world would never had got the theory of relatvity because some idiot teacher did not have the intelligence to judge the man by his mind not how he expressed it in bad garamer-just a hypothethitic but i think u get my point

how many einstiens has the world lost because some idiot teacher falied him for bad grmmer and he then could not go to university -but ended up a chicken thief instead

[pam699]

and agian
scholars have pointed out that there is a fai amount of incomprehensiblity in many of shksears plays-this does not stop you from saying his probable the best wrirer england has produced and from reading his incomprehensible portions

what u r all saying is that if u have a reputation then it does not mater if u have bad english
but if u have no reputation then it does
your all would not read a book by einstien which had bad grammer but you would not read one by pam
yu would read a book which made u money but had bad grammer but not one by pam about philosophy
what u all are doing really is kowtowing to reputations and notablity -which has really litle with is a book or post worth reading if in bad grammer
if i was einstien posting these post -there would be no problem comming from any off u

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: pam699 if einstien was not the typical suck ass wanker fame seeking egotist he should have written his books in bad grammer and when u refused to publish him just said F...K YOU stay in the dark ages and u know what u all would deserve that for being so f...king grammer anal bad grammer has nothing to do with worth and for all your grammer anal u would sell out tommorow and read a bad grammer book if it made u money -and you know what you would be a fool if u did not AND WE ALLLL KNOW THAT SO MUCH FOR YOUR RULES OF GRMAMMER AND NOT TAKING BAD GRAMMER SERUOISLY

I'm going to pretend for a minute that your reply alone wasn't enough to make you look bad.


I don't know where you get off insulting Einstein, but it's completely irrelevent.

Einstein probably used proper grammer and punctualtion because HE WANTED TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. He didn't want people to read the first line of his work and say "this person is an idiot", and throw it away.

I am a musician, and to get work for my band, we make what is called a "demo". This is a short sample of five or six songs, to give the bar or club owner a taste of what we have to offer.

We usually are VERY fussy about which songs to choose, how it sounds, how the packaging looks, and HOW EASY IT IS TO READ THE INFORMATION.

Now do you think it would be a better idea to send in a crappy old cassette, with the band all out of tune and the sound quality fading in and out, along with a crumpled peice of paper with coffee stains on it, or should we send in a well recorded CD in a nice clean jewelcase, along with a professional looking info packet?

Which one is the club owner going to believe came from a professional group who takes their craft seriously?

You can type like a 13 year old sending a text message to her friend in study hall, or you can type like an adult, trying to persuade other adults to consider her point of view.

The choice is yours.